User talk:Andrewjlockley/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Welcome

You appear to know what you're doing, but I figured the general Welcome might still be useful. So here it is. Also, you can archive old talk page messages, or even simply delete them.

Welcome!

Hello, Andrewjlockley, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! - Enuja (talk) 21:26, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Hydrological geoengineering

No disrespect to your contributions; in fact, just the opposite, but your article, however interesting, cannot be included in wikipedia, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hydrological geoengineering for reasons and my suggestions what you can do to preserve your contributions. `'Míkka>t 02:44, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi Andrew, just wanted to thank you for all the work you're doing on new geoengineering-related articles. They'll get fussed around a bit, maybe renamed and the like, but that's how Wikipedia works -- please don't take it personally. Again, thanks -- Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 19:12, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Happy 2009!

I'm on New Page Patrol, so here's a cookie for your newest article! --Rosiestep (talk) 19:20, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Arctic geoengineering

Regarding the current, discussion, I formatted the references into inline citations using templates. I also added a few more references where requested from googlebooks which has a very good selection of sources online. For references try not to use "blogs" unless the author of the blog can be shown to be an expert in the field. See Verifiability for more ideas on this. Good luck on your article Arctic geoengineering and with your other contributions. Kind Regards SriMesh | talk 04:42, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Adminship

Hi. Please read WP:GRFA and consider withdrawing your self-nomination until you gain some more experience. Please contact me if you have any questions. Viriditas (talk) 11:34, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I think I've got the necessary experience to fulfil the limited admin role I seek to undertake. I intend to focus on category admin only initially, and no-one else has the knowledge/experience/time/involvement to do it.Andrewjlockley (talk) 11:45, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Did you read the link I gave you above? Your account was created on 23 April 2007, but you've only been active since 14 December 2008, and since that time, you've made edits to a few articles but you haven't participated in most areas of Wikipedia. There's no such thing as a "limited admin role". Sure, many admins only work in one or two areas, but you are supposed to familiarize yourself with the site and all of its major areas before you become an administrator. Read the GRFA link, please. That article makes it very, very clear that the likelihood of your nomination succeeding is extremely low. If you are really looking for some input, put yourself on editor review first. Viriditas (talk) 12:02, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Greenfinger

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Greenfinger, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

Non-notable neologism, used by a single person in a single article, not nearly enough to establish notability

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Theseeker4 (talk) 03:00, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Geoengineering

Fantastic job. Perhaps, instead of just focusing on "ideas to tackle global warming", you could eventually start a task force/work group that handled such articles within the greater project, rather than forcing a broad topic into a small scope. And you could collaborate with other projects on this particular task force/work group. Anyway, good work. Viriditas (talk) 21:46, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't really know how to go about doing this. I did an article on hydraulic geoengineering, which isn't climate change stuff.Andrewjlockley (talk) 23:47, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, you are off to a good start. Learn as you go, I guess. Viriditas (talk) 00:43, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Greenfinger

An article that you have been involved in editing, Greenfinger, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Greenfinger. Thank you. Theseeker4 (talk) 16:17, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

{{unblock-auto|1=212.183.134.65|2=Autoblocked because your IP address was recently used by "Ross, H (admirer of)". The reason given for Ross, H (admirer of)'s block is: "Personal attacks or [[WP:Harassment|ha|3=LessHeard vanU|4=1273930}}

An article you created maybe deleted soon: Tools which can help you

The article you created: Greenfinger may be deleted from Wikipedia.

There is an ongoing debate about whether your article should be deleted here:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Greenfinger.

The faster you respond, the better chance the article you created can be saved.

Finding sources which mention the topic of your article is the very best way to avoid an article being deleted {{Findsources3}}:

Find sources for Greenfinger: google news recent, google news old, google books, google scholar, NYT recent, NYT old, a9, msbooks, msacademic ...You can then cite these results in the Article for deletion discussion.

Also, there are several tools and helpful editors on Wikipedia who can help you:

1. List the page up for deletion on Article Rescue Squadron. You can get help listing your page on the Article Rescue Squadron talk page.
2. You can request a mentor to help explain all of the complex rules that editors use to get a page deleted: Wikipedia:Adopt-a-User. But don't wait for a mentor to respond to you before responding on the article for deletion page.
3. When trying to delete a page, veteran editors love to use a lot of rule acronyms. Don't let these acronyms intimidate you.
   Here is a list acronyms you can use yourself: WP:Deletion debate acronyms which may support the page you created being kept.
4. You can vote to merge the article into a larger or better established article on the same topic.

If your page is deleted, you still have many options available. Good luck! travb (talk) 01:29, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello - just to let you know that you shouldn't use {{holdon}} in AfD discussions. Its only use is when a page is under threat of speedy deletion. Regards, Bencherlite^Talk 09:11, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Iron fertilisation

Hi there. I was wondering if you could put a full citation in for the "Schiermeier 2003" reference you added to the iron fertilization article? It's difficult to judge how reliable these figures are without full information on the source. Cheers, --PLUMBAGO 10:33, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Brilliant! Thanks for getting that fixed so quickly. Best regards, --PLUMBAGO 11:18, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Current sea level rise

I've debated your recent addition to Current Sea Level Rise on the article's talk page. The main issues are (a) the comparability of the Laurentide Ice Sheet with Greenland and (b) the limitations on glacier flow rates. Thanks. Awickert (talk) 00:30, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I was jsut trying to make the point it's worth looking at. People are too complacent! I've included the reference in other related articles such as arctic shrinkage, effects of global warming etc.

(I moved your comment from my talk page to here to keep it together.) I understand what you're trying to do, and I think that global warming and sea level rise are big issues too. The problem is that Wikipedia is more about being right than about spreading activism for a cause, so it's really important to keep the science very correct, especially since there are always accusations of Wikipedia favoring one side or the other on things in the public light. And that's the problem about attaching something, even published in a scientific journal, that is an end-member prediction, in the lead paragraph. So even if we accept sea level rise as a big issue, we have to make sure we look at all the science. And I hope I didn't come across as too harsh - if I did, I'm really sorry. Awickert (talk) 02:37, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. Just a couple of little things since it looks like you're new here. First, you shouldn't delete material from talk pages, as it's important to have a record, and can make things confusing. Second, next time articles are discussed (and I'm not sure I'm finished with this one, as I might still muck around with it), it should be done on the article's talk page, so everyone can see it easily - I was really just trying to leave you a note to say what I'd done in case you weren't watching the page.

But in general, thanks for your contributions.

Awickert (talk) 07:29, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Global warming

You're addition in Global warming has been been removed because it was undercited (WP:V WP:RS). The discussion for this removal can be found at Talk:Global warming#"Unduly Optimistic?". ChyranandChloe (talk) 03:30, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Advocacy and Importance

The only reason I said that Wikipedia isn't for advocacy, is because I couldn't think of any reason other than using the global warming article as advocacy to consider the global warming article to be the most important article on Wikipedia. Importance of articles depends on a your perspective and interests. To me, even though I haven't improved the articles, the set of articles on Crocodlians [1] are the most important articles on this encyclopedia. - Enuja (talk) 06:52, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

References

When adding references, it's best to add a full reference instead of just a URL. Fortunately, you can use the following tags to cite things via DOI or ISBN, and then use an automatic reference formatter to get the rest of the citation. (I have one, so if you don't want to go through the hassle on the Global warming lead, just cite the DOI or ISBN and I'll take care of it.)

{{cite book|isbn=}}

{{cite book|isbn=}}

Awickert (talk) 16:56, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

There is a template for cite web which can help, but I don't think it can be done automatically, as there isn't a database for websites like there is for ISBN and DOI.

One other thing (I'm sorry if you feel like I'm picking on you!): It's generally policy here to always sign what you write on talk pages, even if I could figure out it was you, to avoid potential confusion - thanks.

Awickert (talk) 17:19, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for signing :)

January 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, talk pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments, as you did at Talk:Global warming, is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Awickert (talk) 19:14, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Please don't forget to provide an edit summary for your edits. Thank you.

It would really help us when editing with you if you would write edit summaries to let us know what you're doing. Awickert (talk) 03:27, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Copyright infringement

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions, but for legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted.

You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words.

If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must include on the external site the statement "I, (name), am the author of this article, (article name), and I release its content under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.3 and later."

You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question at the "Help Desk". You can also leave a message on my talk page. Canterbury Tail talk 13:12, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Stephen Salter

A tag has been placed on Stephen Salter requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the article or have a copy emailed to you. Aka042 (talk) 15:41, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Sources and etc.

• Please do not remove fact tags with reference to opposing data in peer-reviewed literature and replace them with a dubious, non-peer-reviewed source, as you did in Runaway climate change. Please read the clathrate reference I've provided in articles and fact tags, as it's the peer-reviewed one that seems to show that it won't be a problem except on long time-scales, and none of your less-solid sources that you use to say it will be a huge problem really soon actually seem to come out and say that. (by which I mean, that it will be important to global warming soon Awickert (talk) 19:54, 1 February 2009 (UTC))
• Sweeping statements, especially the 2013 sea ice, need a real source, not just a PDF of a presentation. The PDF, while useful, does not make it verifiable. And if it is only an abstract at a meeting (which I, despite all efforts, haven't found), it's not peer-reviewed, and therefore may be challenged. If I were reviewing the journal, I wouldn't let the "trend" he has be anything but a tentative thing, because it's from a selectively cherry-picked set of data, and seems to be undoing itself at the end. Sure, sea ice may be going down fast, but the 2013 number seems at least a couple decades too fast for the data. In addition, statements about sea ice being gone should be qualified by season.

I really don't enjoy policing articles, it takes up my time that I'd rather be spending elsewhere, but you're performing a phenomenal amount of edits, often with less-than-desirable sources and references to nothing more than URLs, across a broad swath of articles, and don't seem to understand the need for verifiable information before coming in and re-writing the lead section of articles that are by nature a big deal and therefore controversial. Although you may be passionate about this, Wikipedia is by nature a non-creative endeavor, in which verifiable information from the most reputable sources is offered up in understandable form. Awickert (talk) 19:35, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Opinion

The more contentious the conversation, the stricter the rules MUST be. That is why large bodies follow Robert's rules of order and small clubs just wing it. With Global Warming, most of what is written is simply propaganda (religion, etc - pick your own synonym) without even the weakest of supporting data. Therefore, only extremely strict rules can attempt to control what is allowed. That said, even if you meet the most strict of the rules, your edits will be removed if they don't get the support of the "mailed fist". (Hey, he said it, not me.) I've had one important edit reverted because, even though it was properly sourced, it did not support the "correct" position. (Remember, science always encourages dispute, wikipedia editors run from it.) Does this answer your question? Q Science (talk) 22:39, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Archiving

I haven't said much since when I gave you the notice that your edit have been removed. However, you're talk page is filling up, and might I recommend you set up an automated archiver. To do so, copy and paste the following the the top of this talk page:

{{User:MiszaBot/config
|maxarchivesize = 200K
|counter = 1
|algo = old(14d)
|archive = User talk:Andrewjlockley/Archive %(counter)d
}}
{{archivebox|auto=long}}

All threads older than 14 days will be automatically moved to you're archive page (it hasn't been created yet, but it will by the bot).

I'm not into climatology other than I'm a bit jealous that you guys get a whole lot more attention than we do in Virology and Epidemiology projects. This is probably more of a suggestion to Awickert than to you, Andrewjlockley, but the central point is that there is a liberal overtone. I am very glad that the article goes to a lot of trouble sticking to the science rather than the political controversies, however you have to understand that the reader does not know or understand everything the article alludes to. The biggest issue I see is "[...]the overwhelming majority of scientists working on climate change agree with the IPCC's main conclusions.", there's no link or further explanation of the IPCC's main conclusion; and to a certain extent, it can seem off-putting if the reader does not have prior knowledge about the conservativeness of the IPCC's conclusions. If you want me to peer review it for tone when you're done with you're rewrite, I can provide one. Other than that, check your bias, advocacy can be very damaging to the article's integrity. ChyranandChloe (talk) 03:05, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Unwelcome advice

You need to slow down your editing and stick rather more closely to what is scientifically justifiable, if you want to edit scientific concepts. Otherwise, you face having a whole load of your wise words slowly whittled down as it becomes clear that they can't be justified. Having your heart in the right place is not good enough William M. Connolley (talk) 21:37, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

All advice is welcome, when it's applicable. I am happy for people to edit/comment my work, as long as it's in accordance with wiki guidelines. I've think I've created over a dozen articles on wiki, and they're mostly doing just fine. Obviously, I make the odd blunder with a poor explanation or a duff reference, and I'm grateful for those who improve my work. What I don't appreciate is reckless editing or deletion of my work where people might think it's under cited or under-developed. The tag is what's needed here or a message on my/its talk page asking me to work up an article.Andrewjlockley (talk) 02:28, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I think the big issue is that you need to slooooow doooooooown. The problem is that your POV is clearly über-environmentalist, and while I think we're all in the same boat as you ideologically, William and I are concerned about the state of the encyclopedia as an unbiased source. It becomes very hard to keep up when you throw things with questionable citations all over the place, and so that's why I think things have been more drastic. I think let's just take a deep breath, follow my two sets of rules (made up in this moment, actually):

I. The information

1. Does it have a proper peer-reviewed journal source?
2. Is it neutral and representative of the overall understanding of the situation?
3. Is it quoted in a way that neither overstates nor understates the conclusions?
4. Am I putting it in the proper section of the article?

If yes to all of these, go ahead.

II. The state of the encyclopedia

1. Should I ask about this on the talk page first?
2. Is this already mentioned on the talk page?
3. Are my spelling, grammar, and style acceptable for an encyclopedia? (more important on highly-trafficked pages)
4. Am I worried that this edit might incite a string of edits that would unduly disrupt an article?

If no to 1, 2, and 4, and yes to 3, go ahead.

If you follow these rules, things will progress more slowly, but be less volatile, and what you write may stand the test of time.

It's also important to note that the adherence to these rules depends on the article. Global warming, for example: 100% strict. Sediment transport, which I built, has super sucky references because I've been lazy - though I can assure you I think it's right - but it hasn't been a problem, because way fewer people care about citations on mathematical descriptions about gravel and dirt in a river than they do about global climate change.

Awickert (talk) 05:23, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, that's a lot more constructive. I will be much more careful in future when sticking my head over the parapet on high-traffic articles.Andrewjlockley (talk) 09:30, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

OK - thanks. Awickert (talk) 18:46, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

The future starts now, man. Your recent edits to global warming (later reverted) broke many of the above rules for avoiding controversy. You didn't listen to what I told you about the clathrate sources and the Archer paper that questioned the rate. You didn't listen to what I told you about finding a real source for the 2013 prediction before using it again. Using some sources and not others is cherry-picking and is a clear break from the neutral-point-of-view. Many of your sources were newspapers, some were environmentalist websites, also unacceptable, especially in a high-traffic article. If you don't know, learn it now: full citations are required on everything, URL's don't cut it, especially on big articles like global warming. Just take a look at the rest of the citations, and match that quality. The abstract on your one peer-reviewed journal reference actually said that clathrates would be released during periods of global cooling, not warming; the Buffet and Archer not-peer-reviewed abstract was the one source that supported you on clathrate issues; go down that road if you want to pursue this. Finally, you say that catastrophic climate change would likely lead to an end of human civilization, which is an exceptional exclamation and does not relate to its (non-scientific web page) reference. After being patient, I see that what I say is simply ignored in the face of dogma, and I feel like I am wasting my time trying to provide reasoning to help you contribute to Wikipedia. Or maybe my final plea to reason may make you justify this better to yourself and your environmental advocacy: if the Wikipedia community allows you to use unreliable sources to make scientifically questionable statements, and we agree that Wikipedia must remain dispassionate, the community is therefore charged to treat global warming denialists with exactly the same courtesy, and allow every news article and questionable un-reviewed study and blog that they come up with to be added to the article. The result would be a total mess of edit wars from both ends of the spectrum, and a huge disservice to those people using Wikipedia as their source to learn about climate change. Awickert (talk) 01:39, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I'd revised the edit even before I'd seen your comment on it. It was work in progress.Andrewjlockley (talk) 17:48, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I was talking about this version. Awickert (talk) 19:38, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Think I've changed all such things that may be objected to.79.65.164.150 (talk) 08:48, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

3rr / edit warring: warning

You've broken WP:3RR on [[global warming].

Rubbish - I've never made a direct revert on this section. I've only ever made NEW edits. Please remove your warning and retract your accusation.Andrewjlockley (talk) 20:12, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

• [2] is a revert (cf [3]) even though you didn't mark it as such.

It's a completely new edit, based on Enjua's concerns.Andrewjlockley (talk) 20:12, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

• [4] is a marked revert

It was a PARTIAL revert - removing the bit YOU complained about, replacing the other bit that wasn't controversial that you removed as 'collateral damage'.

• [5] is a revert, unmarked

I reduced the section, as YOU asked!Andrewjlockley (talk) 20:12, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

• as is [6]

No it's not, it's an updated reference, as per editor request - as can clearly be seen from the history.Andrewjlockley (talk) 20:12, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Please will you live within the rules, and mark your reverts as such, and stop edit warring. You have a whole pile of different people reverting your changes, and rapidly losing patience with you William M. Connolley (talk) 18:56, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

This is demonstrably false. Each revision is different, and is designed to take account of concerns raised in earlier amends.Andrewjlockley (talk) 19:38, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

• Please read WP:3RR. It doesn't matter if it was in different sections, or on different subjects ... All that matters is that it was 3 reverts on the same article. (its a common mistake to make - but those are the rules). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:14, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
• (ec, Kim said most already, but I stress a slightly different point) Please read WP:3RR. A revert in the sense of this rule is any edit that undoes or partially undoes some other editors action. It does not have to revert to any particular previous version and the reverts do not have to pertain to the same issue. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:17, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

It was just normal editing which directly took into account actions other editors had asked for. How can doing what someone's asked for be a revert?Andrewjlockley (talk) 20:21, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

To simplify: Do not make edits that change sections, paragraphs or sentences in part or wholly, so that it resembles edits that have previously been reverted or changed, when you are close to the 3RR boundary. No matter if you think its merited by comments or in other ways seems reasonable. Otherwise you will end up breaking 3RR again, and may end up being blocked. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:27, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

It seems to be necessary to ask someone else to convince you of the meaning of revert [7] William M. Connolley (talk) 22:00, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

For the avoidance of doubt WMC, I completely and totally reject your accusation. I've been GETTING reverted, I have NOT been reverting.Andrewjlockley (talk) 01:19, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Andrew, I'm convinced you mean well but I think it would be for the best if you simply slow down. This is one of Wikipedia's most visible articles and as a result policies on referencing, giving appropriate weight to different views, and the like are more strictly applied than on most other articles. Introduce new ideas gradually, seeking consensus at each step along the way. Be prepared to use high-quality reference sources and to explain why those sources justify the prominence of material -- not why you think it's important, but why the scientific community acknowledges the prominence of a view. In this way you can most successfully meet the deadline for improving the article. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:36, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Help! What's the difference between 'slow down' and 'do nothing'? I don't see how making fewer edits makes any one edit less likely to get reverted? I'm desperately trying to get some edits on the specifics of the methane feedback loops to stick and I keep getting shot down - usually for style points, not science points. It's driving me nuts! (And apparently a few other ppl too). I get the citations thing, and even when pasting text that's previously been picked over I guess I'll have to go thru it again and again before posting into GW. However - really I think I'm missing something here. What's the fundamental problem? Or is the GW article just one endless, draining edit war that I should just learn to get used to?Andrewjlockley (talk) 01:46, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't get the style stuff. I've been saying basically what Boris is: references, references. Also, it could help to create your own sandbox; I wouldn't mind grammar and style checking for you. Awickert (talk) 02:59, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

(Although I did see some copy editing issues, hence the above offer. Awickert (talk) 03:03, 4 February 2009 (UTC))

If you look at the edit history for GW and the talk page, 3 reverts were for style - not integrated, too long, too dense (mutually contradictory). I can see 2 ref mistakes (as opposed to inadequate citation). 1) NSIDC report from wrong year (hardly a crime - same site as correct report) 2) Buffett and Archer apparently supporting only half my argument (another reference was used to support other half). As far as I can see the real problem is that there's half a dozen people who will arbitrarily revert if they happen not to like every aspect of an edit. This makes it virtually impossible to make any progress. I think people should be more willing to improve edits and less trigger happy.Andrewjlockley (talk) 08:30, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Less trigger-happy applies to you, too. Although I'm not sure what happened with the 3 reverts (I tried to look in the history and is confusing), you started the day with adding a ton of material with bad sources, including ones I'd tried to tell you about for a while. As Kim said, your the reference to "support the other half" did not address clathrates, hence the importance of reading them. Your insistence shows that you ignore his comments as much as mine. Do you not see a problem with stating things that are unsubstantiated? It is not a small deal. Around 17,000 people visit Global Warming per day. There are 86,400 seconds in a day. One person every 5 seconds will see the information. Having information that is wrong on that article is therefore a big issue, hence the requests to slow down. And as you say "the real problem is that there's half a dozen people who will arbitrarily revert if they happen not to like every aspect of an edit". I say that the real problem is that you don't understand the importance of stating unbiased fact, hence you think that "unimportant details" include references, apparently. And writing style is also important, as this is a featured article. So either you can (a) accept this all as a nasty spat and get on with it, hopefully learning how to write more scientifically, or (b) continue to try to say how everyone else screwed you over, which you may feel like is the case in this particular situation, but after needing to constantly fact tag your statements, write to you, and have you ignore everything I said, the general truth still remains that I'm sick of this, and will not support you on this issue because you've spammed your unsubstantiated POV across too many articles.

Also, I don't see why I got a rant after offering to help you here....

Now on a happier note, I replied on my talk page, and will get journal articles for you if you need someone with subscriptions to get the ones you need to pay for.

Awickert (talk) 17:09, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Andrew, I'm the admin dealing with William's 3RR report and I've come to the conclusion that you just wanna help Wikipedia, right? I'm right? Okay, well, on Wikipedia you can't just revert back and forth (or anything that can be construed as reverting back and forth); you need to work openly with your fellow contributors to come to a consensus. One thing you need to take heed is: Never put yourself in a position where you couldn't help the encyclopaedia - An example position would be where you'd be blocked, or put on a topic ban. You'll show yourself to be a much stronger editor if you use calm discussion and suggestion, rather than reverts, or partial reverts, okay? :-) - Just talk it out with William. He's a nice guy... generally... :-D - If you need any help or have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 21:32, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

The above was the ruling, Andrew. Just play it cool. There's no rush to force things through :-) Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 10:45, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Suggestions for collaborative editing and Global warming

Global warming doesn't have to be an endless edit war for you. The first time a particular edit is reverted, I suggest you don't just take "on board" comments in edit summaries and on the talk page and make a new edit, but instead work towards a new consensus on wording on the talk page before you make an edit on the global warming page. This isn't, by any means, the policy on Wikipedia, it's just one possible method. I have a personal one revert rule, where I try to only revert any single idea or contribution only once. After that, it's all talk on the talk page until there is a consensus on the talk page. It's a great way to prevent every being in an edit war.

On your interest in getting methane positive feedbacks in the article: they are already in the article. There is a link to Arctic methane release in the current and in my shortened version of the lead, and has been in the feedbacks section for a long time (I just looked at some old versions of the page, and it's still there). Therefore, I'm honestly very confused about why you want to add new sentences and paragraphs about it. If there is something wrong with the current wording about it, suggest, on the talk page, ways to re-word those sections. Don't just add more to the article. Having different paragraphs that talk about the same subject is one real risk of something written by multiple people, where those people don't carefully read the existing text and work towards creating better language. Please don't make that mistake. Please try to make the article better instead of trying to add your language to it. - Enuja (talk) 03:02, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

OK I will seek to do that. The problem I have is that the methane issue may completely overwhelm AGW and this needs to be made VERY CLEAR, not just with a link that essentially says 'there might be a bit of methane'.Andrewjlockley (talk) 08:52, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

How about this: search around on Google Scholar or Web of Science or GeoRef or whatever you like, and give me a wish list of papers that I then give to you via email or ftp or whatever. Then, after digesting, extend the methane section with good citations to peer-reviewed science. Awickert (talk) 20:04, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

How about I give you some text to mess up and cite for me?Andrewjlockley (talk) 23:08, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

This might be the root of the problem. It's backwards to start with what you know, write the text, and then find citations to cite for everything you've said. The better order of operations is to start with the reliable sources and write the text, sourcing while you go. Sure, on Wikipedia, sometimes someone else will have written something without sources and you need to go find source, figure out if it is true and edit it to be true and supported by sources. However, this is not the ideal way of doing things, and a bunch people have been trying to convince you to start with the reliable sources before you write the text. This same bunch of people is not particularly interested in finding reliable sources related to what you've written, reading them to figure out it what you've written is supported by them, and then editing it to be true and sourced. Just putting, unsourced (or sourced by unreliable sources, or citing a reliable source but saying something that's not in that source) what you think is true in an article is not so much collaborative editing as it is more making work for other people. - Enuja (talk) 23:23, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I'll just do my own edits/snadboxes then and you can all tear them to pieces, peer-reviewed citations included.Andrewjlockley (talk) 00:48, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

The Archer&Buffet(2005) reference.

Will you please stop inserting this one? The time-scales considered for the release of the 2000 Gtonnes is 10,000-100,000 years. You are stating this as if its in the immediate future.

Please stop citing scientific literature, if you haven't actually read the papers, or at least have a decent understanding of the complexities involved. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:38, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Suggest you rephrase anything you see as misleading, rather than making an ad hominem attack.Andrewjlockley (talk) 18:30, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

You've officially exhausted my patience - a first on Wikipedia for me, even including fundamentalist creationists and the "global warming isn't happening" crowd. This is not a personal attack. This is supreme annoyance at repeated mis-citations of science, and as the "fact" and "dubious" tags on articles didn't work, and even trying to place a nice rubric on your talk page didn't work, I don't see what else I can do. I suggest that you take the personal resoponsibility to make proper citations instead of asking others to replace misrepresentations that you propagate. Clean up your act and all will be happiness. Don't clean up your act and you'll have lost the rest of the goodwill of the community that works on the climate change articles. Awickert (talk) 19:55, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

There is no ad-hominem in the above text. Lets make it very simple: You either haven't read the paper - or you are deliberately trying to misinform and create undue alarming statements. Personally i'm assuming good faith, and i'm assuming that the former is the case, and that you simply have misunderstood the paper's abstract.

As for rephrasing - there is nothing to rephrase, since the paper is being used in a wrong context, and with a faulty conclusion. And that is the trouble here. (you have btw. been pointed this out before) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:23, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I was using Buffett and Archer SOLELY to estimate the size of the methane store. It is LAWRENCE who I am using to explain the potential speed. If you look at the reference I've cited, it's the abstract only - and yes I have read it. If you'd offered to replace the abstract with a full citation, great. If you'd edited my submission to state that maybe Buffett and Archer have a different view on speed to Lawrence, great. If you'd like to suggest I didn't bother reading the abstract - please refrain. You may not agree that a feedback loop exists here, but I'm certainly not the only one making the case. Actually, I'd love you to contribute to find a NPOV which reflects the risk of extreme harm AND the inconclusive evidence for that outcome.Andrewjlockley (talk) 01:33, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Then you are conflating things. Lawrence is talking about stored methane in tundra (land!), while B&A are talking about marine(!) clathrates. You can't just mix the two, as if they were the same. And this is exactly the problem with most of your edits - they mix and tumble things together, no matter the context. This is called original research (or more specifically a synthesis (done by an editor). This is specifically not allowed on Wikipedia. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 02:20, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Right, to please the most fastidious nit-picking on this issue, I've edited to 'Should the more conservative estimate of volume be correct or at least too low, and should clathrates be omitted from the analysis completely, then 900 gigatonnes of carbon may potentially be released as methane from permafrost and clathrates as a result of human activity. As methane is a potent greenhouse gas, this is equivalent to a release of carbon dioxide very roughly 30 times the total emitted by humans since the Industrial Revolution. A release on this scale, or even a fraction of it, will create catastrophic climate change and is likely seriously affect human civilisation.' The conclusion is still exactly the same - we're stuffed.Can I post this or something similar?(In fact, this is really conservative as a release on this scale will overwhelm the methane sinks, so probably 50 would be more realistic)Andrewjlockley (talk) 08:55, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

How do you derive the figures (30-50 times?) [from what i can quickly calculate - its less than human emissions (the anthro atmos content is 3000GT*(100ppm/380ppm)=>790 Gigatonnes - and thats <50% of emissions)] - and what reference are you using for justifying a sudden (ie. immediate release), and finally what reference makes you think that all of the methane will end up in the atmosphere? (ie. a slow constant release of all of it over 100 years, will mean that only ~20% of it is in the atmos as methane, since it degrades to CO2 fast). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 12:23, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

The GWP of methane is about 20 over 100 yrs. It's about 70 over 20yrs. (figs from memory). A methane pulse is the GW equivalent of being hit by a train. My figures are conservative, assuming the rapid output predicted by Lawrence et al.Andrewjlockley (talk) 18:25, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Now let me try again. Your figures are original research. Lawrence doesn't state the amount of methane that would be released, your figures on the methane is unsourced, your combination of these figures, without a source is a synthesis. All of which isn't allowed on WP.

Pers. note: quick calculation even in the event of a complete release of the methane over a century gives a a figure of "only" 11 times anthro emissions, and thats assuming that all is released in year 1 (in a 100 year period): 20*900/(790*2) - this of course is incorrect for several reasons, the first being that all will be released over that period of time, and the second that it won't be released in a single burst in year 1. (which would be the only way you could multiply by 70, and that would only be for the first 20 years) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:33, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Interestingly enough the terranature article that you are so fond of quoting[8], states that 1400 (900+500) gigatonnes would more than double the atmospheric content of carbon, this means we can make a simple calculation: It would correspond to 380ppm, the human emissions are roughly 2*100ppm (2 times because half of the anthro emissions have been sunk) - so it would be less than 2 times human emissions. Thats some miscalculation...... Which is why we (as editors) aren't allowed to give such figures without citing a reliable source for the facts. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:49, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I think you've ignored GWP in that. Anyway, I'll remove the multiplier just in case it fits with the OR criteria. Doesn't change the argument though. I've removed the B&A ref as I don't need it.Andrewjlockley (talk) 02:10, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Saying that one amount of methane is whatever percent of another amount (with both numbers sourced) is not forbidden as a synthesis. WP:SYN says, "The "No original research" rule does not forbid routine calculations (e.g. adding or subtracting numbers, rounding them, calculating percentages, converting them into similar units, putting them on a graph, or calculating a person's age) that add no new information to what is already present in the cited sources." However, drawing any conclusions on the basis of that relative amount is forbidden. Dan Wylie-Sears 2 (talk) 21:40, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Taking estimation figures unrelated to the cited sources (and for different things (marine clathrates vs. land clathrates), and claiming that the sources support it is WP:OR.

If the calculation is trivial - then can you figure it out? It gets different results depending on timescale of release, and the period we are looking at. If released in one burst - ie. everything at once - which no source at all is claiming (and which for land methane is impossible) - then you get one result. If you slowly release it over a longer period say 10 years - then you get another result, if its over 100 years - you get a third result. If you additionally look at it from forcing over the first decade - then you get a fourth result, .... --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:49, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I've dropped the calc as it could be argued it's OR - even if it is entirely correct.Andrewjlockley (talk) 03:11, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Sources

Hello, Andrewjlockley. You have new messages at Awickert's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Synopsis: I was curious and google scholared for clathrates. In 90 seconds I found 4 papers. Here they are. You should try it! Awickert (talk) 16:44, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Andrewjlockley. You have new messages at Awickert's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Synopsis: It doesn't matter that journal articles aren't free, they must be cited in order to constrain yourself to fact. Awickert (talk) 22:00, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Andrewjlockley. You have new messages at Awickert's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Synopsis: watchlist?

Hello, Andrewjlockley. You have new messages at Awickert's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Synopsis: watchlist.

Please try to fit in

Wikipedia isn't really ruled by people dedicated to suppressing information that supports our views on climate change, although advocacy happens from all sides on all controversial issues. It's just that it has its own rules and ingrown culture. Use stub tags. Pay attention to what people are saying here. Go the extra mile to fit in: there are good reasons for a whole lot of it. Dan Wylie-Sears 2 (talk) 21:25, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

If you look through the articles I've created I use loads of stub tagsAndrewjlockley (talk) 03:17, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok, fair enough. The two I looked at were Stephen Salter and Tom Wigley. On the Tom Wigley page I think I saw the change to the stub tag by someone else and mistook it for them adding it. But what I was mostly responding to was the level of heat higher up this page. I was using stubs as an example because that was what I had just added to the Stephen Salter article. Dan Wylie-Sears 2 (talk) 13:59, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

A big part of the "ingrown culture" is appropriate use of good references. It's absolutely essential on high-profile articles. Try it! I might stop bugging you all the time :).

In all seriousness, my #1 concern with what you are doing is that you are making claims, and then trying to find references to back them up (and sometimes failing to do so), but with a near-unshakable a priori view that your statements are correct. The better way to do things would be to take what you believe and know, look through research, add to your stockpile of knowledge, and then lay it out there. And you might learn a thing or two; I always do when I read.

Awickert (talk) 00:18, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

That's one big part, but one among many. For example, consider WP:POVFORK. There are a bunch of things like that. Dan Wylie-Sears 2 (talk) 13:59, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Can you give examples? I don't think I've created any articles of that ilk.Andrewjlockley (talk) 15:59, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not saying it as something you've done. I'm saying it as something that's a piece of the culture of WP. There are a bunch of them, and I don't know which (if any) you've run into besides citing sources. Dan Wylie-Sears 2 (talk) 14:29, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

CO2 sequestration moved

Moved to Carbon sequestration for you. Please clean up to fit new name and to address User:NJGW's concern on talk. Vsmith (talk) 15:52, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank youAndrewjlockley (talk) 16:02, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Citations

From your recent edits, it seems clear that in spite of our conversations and my offer to converte DOI and ISBN to references for you, you simply will not insert proper citations. Let me give you a few reasons why to do this, other than those discussed at my talk page.

1. It is the way Wikipedia works
2. If you are editing a page that is significantly edited by others and insert URL's only for citations, but the pre-existing citations are well-done, it is disrespectful to break from the past status quo. It's like taking a finished manuscript by someone else and scribbling sloppy edits on it in in pen before sending it to the publisher.

• This is not to mention that it is disrespectful to me to me and my time to continue telling me that you don't know how to do this (e.g., on my talk page), especially when I placed the templates right here on your talk page (scroll up) much earlier and offered to use the bot to finish them for you, and then even when I realize that it just might be too hard for you to scroll up and I re-explain it to you, you just don't do it. It makes me feel that you have an arrogant attitude in which the way that things were run before you arrived are not important to you. Although I am working hard to cooperate, you must have a desire to follow the rules and do things the Wikipedia way.
• Also, though your citations are getting better, they are still no cigar. I undid one of your citations: saying that global warming will continue even if emissions stop is close to saying that sea ice will continue to melt, but quoting them on that is still mis-quoting, and it would be better to either find another source or say that the Earth will continue to warm and therefore it is likely that sea ice will continue to melt. This is a mild example of an instance in which I'm concerned about your attitude here. Especially in your earlier edits, you mis-cited many sources. You're starting to gain more experience editing here; someday the rest of us will have to get back to our projects and stop cleaning up after you, at which point it will become an important question whether or not you can hack it here alone.

Awickert (talk) 18:54, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I finally found that template, it's on a page you send me a link to. I don't really know how to use it, I will have a go. Can you send me a link to the revert or edit you made? I'd rather improve the text than just undo the edit. One of the problems I have here is the culture of trigger-happy reverts. What's the point of spending hours on an edit if people revert it WITHOUT EVEN READING IT.Andrewjlockley (talk) 00:34, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

"WITHOUT EVEN READING IT"? You are incredible.

• First, the template is not just in a link, it's actually on your talk page, here, if you didn't just look at my comments WITHOUT EVEN READING THEM. To use it, put the DOI where I put X: doi=X. Then I or you or someone else runs the citation bot and it automatically fills in the citations.
• As to the revert: excuse me, you must have looked at my comment on the talk page again "WITHOUT EVEN READING IT". Let me quote from above: "I undid one of your citations: ....". That is all. Not hours of work. And I even told you which paper I reverted, not that you would remember. And unlike you, I actually read the the paper, instead of citing it "WITHOUT EVEN READING IT" and realized it didn't mention arctic shrinkage. Something I have a problem with is your irresponsibility which requires others to use their time to clean up after you. And what makes your hours of work more important than everyone else's hours of work reviewing everything that you write because there is always a high chance that you are mis-citing?

So no, I won't give you the edit link; you might miss it on your talk page like everything else I have spent hours putting here, so just look in the history yourself. And if you screw up with the references? Don't worry, I might not notice, because I'm really tempted to take all of these pages off my watchlist. Good luck making people respond to the problems of climate change; it truly is a noble goal, and as fed up as I am with stuff here, I hope you succeed.

Awickert (talk) 01:10, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Don't lose your patience with me - it wasn't you I was referring to. Some dude reverted one of my edits and when I challenged him he admitted he didn't bother reading it, he just reverted it 'in case it was vandalism'Andrewjlockley (talk) 01:13, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Assuming you refer to my revert, that is not what I wrote. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 01:25, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

It was pretty close. SOrry if you feel it was a misquote.Andrewjlockley (talk) 01:38, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't cite books, as a rule, as they can't be checked. I got the cite web link, that's what I was referring to.Andrewjlockley (talk) 01:16, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

May I acquaint you with the concept of a library? ;-) --Stephan Schulz (talk) 01:25, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

They're obsolete, particularly as regards the instant checking of facts and most especially for the casual WP user.Andrewjlockley (talk) 01:38, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

See the entry unreliable source here. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:48, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I didn't say they were unreliable, I just prefer to cite stuff which can be checked online. For example, I usually refuse to use 'science' magazine as it doesn't usually offer abstracts.Andrewjlockley (talk) 09:49, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I know the link you mean, and I DID read the paper. I was aware that it required an inference to justify its use, but I still thought it was relevant. Sorry you disagreed. If you send me the link I'll clean it up.Andrewjlockley (talk) 01:18, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

OK - I was talking about the cite journal. Books have ISBN, journals DOI. The cite web is trickier - you have to enter stuff yourself. Sometimes I just use the brackets where you can do [URL title], as in google, when the full formality isn't needed, as in a list of external links. I'm glad you read the paper, it is important to make sure that you cite without inferences, but that one wasn't as bad as earlier ones. I'm just frustrated with this, and so when you said that, I thought that I was implicit. I think I should just take a break from this for a while and head back to geology though; more happiness there. Awickert (talk) 01:28, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Didn't realise you could do journals DOI, I will take a look at that. It is a headache doing GW stuff, but that's why it's important to hang on in there.Andrewjlockley (talk) 01:38, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

My reluctance to do proper citations was based on the erroneous believe that journals had to be cited manually. I will look for DOI citations on them in future.Andrewjlockley (talk) 01:41, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

At last, we connect! copy/paste: <ref>{{cite journal|doi=[INSERT DOI HERE]}}</ref>

Awickert (talk) 02:33, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if either of you knows this, but there is a handy tool right in the interface. Go to "My preferences -> Gadgets -> Editing gadgets" and enable "refTools". Don't forget to "Safe". This will give you an extra icon {{cite}} above the edit box. Hit it, and a convenient and easy to use menu/form based interface will allow you to enter refs without dealing with the template syntax. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:55, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

No I didn't - thanks a bunch! Awickert (talk) 17:06, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I just added all the available tools. Dunno what you mean by safe. My edit window now looks like the flight deck of the starship enterprise. I have no idea what any of these buttons do.Andrewjlockley (talk) 10:01, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

If you see the new icons, you are ok. I just mentioned "Safe" in the preferences panel because its at the very bottom, and not visible without scrolling in many browsers. To see what the icons do, just open an edit window in a sandbox and try them. It will produce entries like this (bracketed by <ref></ref>): Invented, Fritz (January 13, 2942). "Awww! Awww! Awwwsome!" (in Universal). Ursa Minor Publishing. Retrieved 2009-02-09. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)CS1 maint: unrecognized language (link). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:24, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

When editing the lead section of Global warming, please go to talk page first

I really sincerely did mean the praise of you I put on my talk page. [9] However, your edits are starting to be frustrating to me, as well. When editing the lead section of Global warming, please suggest your improvement first on the global warming talk page. Then, if no-one objects in 24 hours or so, make the edit. The article is a featured article and it is controversial. Therefore, the current language is good (and so don't need to be "fixed" immediately), and is carefully constructed to be true and unbiased. This construction is not always perfect, and you should continue to try to improve it. However, you should not make any more edits on the lead section of global warming without first suggesting them on the talk page. - Enuja (talk) 23:09, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

OK, the sandbox concept dies, so I thought I'd have go directly. They were small and neutrally worded. No revert yet. I will bear in mind your views in future tho. What about in the body of the article?Andrewjlockley (talk) 00:14, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Edits in the body are fine, but it's good form to mention them on the talk page. And I'll revert it if you don't make comments supporting it on the talk page in the next day, as I said on the talk page. - Enuja (talk) 01:19, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

You may have born my views in mind, but you appear not to think that my suggestions are useful, as you've continued to edit the lead first. Maybe I should back up here a bit: when new information appears, you should find the sub-article that it goes in, edit that article, then, if the new information is important enough, edit the relevant section in the main global warming article and then, finally, if it's really important or alters some statement in the current lead, edit the lead. Editing the lead first prevents other editors from collaboratively editing and making suggestions about different/additional sources on the information when it's in the relatively less targeted sections (and therefore where editors have a much slower revert trigger finger), and if you get to editing only the lead, that will create a lead that is not unified with the article or with the coverage of Global warming on Wikipedia as a whole. - Enuja (talk) 02:46, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I think I totally took on board your comments before re-incorporating the info. I accept the importance of building out the main article. It's really a matter of time and energy. It takes about 1 hr per word of editing on the GW article. WHich bits of the body do you now think need expandin? I will try and work on them for you.Andrewjlockley (talk) 08:35, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, this matter was discussed on the TP (don't know if you were aware of that)Andrewjlockley (talk) 08:35, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

You have argued on the talk page for adding information (first from a press release, then you said you'd go to the peer reviewed literature). However, you make the edit to the article page before you put suggested language on the talk page. You have yet to make any specific suggestions of language on the take page. Of course I'm aware of the discussions on the talk page: I am one of the major contributors to them.

I don't actually know of anything that needs expanding: it's you who wants to change the global warming article.

I'm mentioning an article on the talk page: if you chose the "email me" link on my talk page, you can send me an email, and I'll reply with the text of the article, if you want it. - Enuja (talk) 20:54, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Ice sheet demolition

I have nominated Ice sheet demolition, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ice sheet demolition. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Atmoz (talk) 07:10, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Future journal articles

While I appreciate your willingness to contribute to the peer-reviewed literature concerning climate science, I think that using Wikipedia to do so is an inappropriate use of Wikimedia resources. In particular, I am talking about User:Andrewjlockley/Atmospheric Methane Remediation and User:Andrewjlockley/Ocean Anoxia Geoengineering where you say you are using user-space pages for the development of potential articles to be submitted to GRL. Please read Wikipedia:NOT#WEBHOST for more information. Thanks. -Atmoz (talk) 09:28, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

If it's in my sandbox then surely it's OK? It's not in the main area.Andrewjlockley (talk) 09:39, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

No. Please click the link I supplied above and read it. The policy specifically deals with pages in your user space, including sub-pages like the two I linked in my previous post and other sandboxes. -Atmoz (talk) 09:55, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I did click the link but it didn't make any sense to me. The reason I wanted to do it on wiki was

• People can collaborate
• It's relevant to my other wiki stuff
• It has citation tools

Do you know how else I could do this?Andrewjlockley (talk) 09:59, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

There are a number of options. Use your own Wiki, ask for an account on a private Wiki, use Google Documents (that's fairly good and free), or use any number of other collaboration tools. I understand why Wikipedia is attractive for this, but, as Atmoz pointed out, this is not really appropriate use of the resources. Keep in mind that the foundation is a tax-exempt charity. They have to stick to their specified goals, and I don't think collaboration to produce original research is among those. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:08, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

OK I will move it in a short while. I assume there's no tearing hurry.Andrewjlockley (talk) 11:29, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Greenfinger

A tag has been placed on Greenfinger requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article consists of a dictionary definition or other article that has been transwikied to another project and the author information recorded.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Atmoz (talk) 10:18, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion

I suggest that you open an RFC on those articles you and William M. Connolley are having problems agreeing on. More eyes/editors/opinions/ would be beneficial in my opinion. The area of contention is outside my field of expertise so I can't help directly here, but other editors probably can. The same suggestion has been made on William M. Connolley's talk page. Exxolon (talk) 19:06, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Warning

Please be advised that wikipedia is intended to be encyclopedia, and the pages in wikipedia.org are intended to serve this purpose. Storing draft papers of your scientific research is inadmissible and is considered to be abuse of wikipedia. There are plenty of free hosting service in the internet. - 7-bubёn >t 02:11, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

See discussion above, is there any need for a massive rush? I was only advised this morning.Andrewjlockley (talk) 02:12, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Restored. However I fail to see your difficulties: don't you have a computer? - 7-bubёn >t 02:51, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Why I'm not endorsing the RFC

I've not endorsed the RFC because I think that you are still editing in good faith, and I don't see where you have violated any policy after understanding that policy or edit warred after having best practices to avoid edit warring explained in painstaking detail. - Enuja (talk) 02:58, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Maybe you could write an 'outside view'? Andrewjlockley (talk) 10:49, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

As far as I know, it does not violate Wikipedia policy to make new articles or edits full of errors and expect other people to clean up after you, as long as you honestly believe that your edits are improving the encyclopedia (that your edits, flaws and all, are better than not having the information on the encyclopedia). This is probably your most frustrating editing characteristic. It is absolutely true that the amount of errors and uncited things in your edits have dramatically decreased, but you seem to be focused more on getting stuff in the encyclopedia than getting it right. And, while it might be frustrating, I can't see how that's against policy or violates the core principles of Wikipedia or anything else. - Enuja (talk) 02:58, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I will also seek to further tighten my editing/sourcing. I will look to expand dois, particularly.Andrewjlockley (talk) 10:49, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Your other characteristic that is frustrating is where you reply to comments without understanding them. If, while in direct conversation with you on a talk page, someone posts someithing you don't understand, it would be most constructive if you would simply state "I didn't understand that." When you continue to make edits without understanding what other people are saying (missing that they've given you tools for making citations easily, replying to a comment when a format problem stopped you from reading part of the text of that comment, saying "surely it's okay" without understanding the policy specifically quoted to tell you that something is not okay), this is extremely frustrating. - Enuja (talk) 02:58, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

will make more effort to ensure I understand where there may be some doubt, esp. on edits/reverts.Andrewjlockley (talk) 10:49, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm also worried that you might not be able to accept a near-consensus (everybody but you), for example on Talk:Global warming, that runaway climate change should not be in the lead. If you're not willing to "lose" arguments, you will eventually be unable to make constructive edits. - Enuja (talk) 02:58, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I do drop stuff, like the emissions increase in the GW lead. Andrewjlockley (talk) 10:49, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion, a person with frustrating habits can still contribute constructively, so only the last problem is something that would be appropriate to make a request for comment about. And I don't yet know if you'll be able to concede defeat. - Enuja (talk) 02:58, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Please slap me down if I don't fully take any of this on board.Andrewjlockley (talk) 10:49, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I honestly don't think I have anything to say on the RFC itself: I'm not objecting to the factual descriptions there, I just don't think that an RFC is necessarily likely to have the best outcome. The RFC has already been endorsed by enough people to stick around, and what I care about is not the process of an RFC (which I know nothing about) but making the articles and the editing environment as good as possible. - Enuja (talk) 11:21, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

RFC on WMC

I have no opinion here - my suggestion to both of you was an RFC on the article(s) where conflict was taking place to get more opinions/eyes/editors involved. RFCs on articles are more neutral than RFCs on editors. However since WMC has inititiated an RFC on you that doesn't seem likely. I can't say whether an RFC on WMC is a good idea or not. If you do decide to go ahead, make sure you have decent grounds to do so. Exxolon (talk) 20:35, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Stratospheric sulfur aerosols (geoengineering)

I have nominated Stratospheric sulfur aerosols (geoengineering), an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stratospheric sulfur aerosols (geoengineering). Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Atmoz (talk) 18:10, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Personal Conflicts

I'm just going to be extremely blunt here. I think that there are an enormous number of crude, rude, and totally inappropriate edit summaries and attitudes on Global warming. This includes a fair number of William M. Connolley's comments on the talk page and edit summaries of main article reverts. I think that this attitude is counter-productive. However, I haven't done anything about it, because I can't see anything I can do to "make" him or anyone else play nice. The most productive thing I can think to do is to play nice myself. I have the same suggestion for you: if you want things to be nice and pleasant there, be nice yourself. That's all you can do. Ignore any personal comments, or, at most, make an extremely polite post on the rude person's talk page asking them not to be rude. If that doesn't work, there are several further steps to use (Wikiquette alert, RFC), but these steps are, in many cases, more likely to escalate the conflict than to make people be nice.

Never address content disagreements with a person at the same time you address problems with attitude. These are two extremely different issues. In your disagreements with William M. Connolley, you regularly mention the reaction of skeptical editors (people who insert poorly cited information "debunking" some part of global warming) as an example of your problem with him. This is not your problem with him. This is William M. Connolley's problem, and a problem with how Wikipedia as a whole is treating new editors with problems with facts, but it isn't your problem. Don't confound 1) William M. Connolley's personal problems and 2) other people's problems with William M. Connolley's attitude with 3) your factual and content disputes with William M. Connolley and others.

Where I appear to disagree with you is that I think William M. Connolley's actual article edits (not edit summaries) are essentially always article improvements. Sometimes he may edit to something that I don't think is the best of all suggested possibilities, but the article after his edits is never in an "emergency-> need to fix" situation. This means that each and every content dispute you have with him can be settled the right way - on the talk page - because it doesn't matter which version the article is in during the dispute. I've never felt the slightest bit bullied or treated rudely by William M. Connolley, or, in fact, any of the regular editors on global warming. Why? Because I'm polite, follow the rules, and don't make anything personal.

Why am I posting something like this on your talk page and not on William M. Connolley's? Because I think I might be able to convince you to be nice to him and others, but I know I can't convince him to be nice to skeptics.

The take-home message here is that you need to drop all of the personal comments in each and every content dispute you have. You seem to be good at taking advice once you actually understand it, and you don't appear to emotionally scarred by criticism (which is wonderful), but you do appear to critique the person in addition to critiquing the content when you have a content disagreement with someone, and that's wrong. - Enuja (talk) 17:19, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry I lose my rag with him sometimes. I don't doubt the wmc CAN BE a good editor. I give him articles to savage and I thank him for his work. But:

• He's consistently vandalised my work, reversing points I've made with no supporting evidence, even when the original point was factually correct. Look at the edit histories of runaway climate change, stratospheric sulfur aerosols, etc.
• He's totally disrespectful of the edits I make, reverting a haystack to remove a needle.
• He's openly abusive, given to personal assaults, bullying, swearing, and victimisation by use/abuse of wiki policies.

I've tried to be polite to him but he just continues to treat me like a complete idiot. Sure, I've made plenty of crap edits and I've deserved the odd beasting. But generally, my work is valid (if untidy). I wouldn't tolerate this treatment in the workplace, at a sports club, charity or any other walk of life. I don't see why I should have to tolerate him here. The rest of the team makes me want to be better, but he just makes me want to give up. He's an unpleasant bully and it's totally unacceptable how he behaves. He desperately needs a serious dressing down, but I don't want to be the one to point the finger, as I'll just end up looking like a whinging crybaby trying to get my own back.Andrewjlockley (talk) 01:31, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ice sheet demolition

Moved to userspace: User:Andrewjlockley/Sea Ice Manipulation by Ice Chipping. Please notify me when you are done and I will delete it, again. Cheers, Cirt (talk) 07:28, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Refs (again)

I initially thought you were joking, but you've said it often enough that I think you really believe it, so... your apparent conviction that using "doi" refs is (a) required and (b) sufficient is wrong, on both counts William M. Connolley (talk) 09:04, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

previously you've deleted almost anything that's not from a journal, so I don't use such sources anymore. The sources also have to be current science, preferable well cited and applicable. Will that do?Andrewjlockley (talk) 09:53, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Um yes, I think it is clear that you still don't understand. I can try to explain, if you'll avoid harping on about the past William M. Connolley (talk) 18:10, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Feel free to explain.Andrewjlockley (talk) 23:51, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

The important thing is that the refs are (a) reputable and (b) support the statement you are making. Being (c) of an appropriate level to the article in question is also nice; it's why you may get what are perfectly good refs on a non-science page removed on GW. If you stick to scientific papers you go a long way towards (a), but not all the way, because if you use, say, low-level ecology papers to support climatological statements, you lose. But your major failing is (b). It appears to me that your M.O. is to find a phrase or sentence you want to support, type it into google scholar, and pick the first vaguely plausible ref that comes back, without making efforts to ensure that it says what you want it to (of course this also misses the point that its better to go from statements that you know are in refs, to editing articles, rather than dredging up support for statements you already know you want to make; but I'm not going to try pushing that one) William M. Connolley (talk) 00:08, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

It may surprise you to know that I was already aware that references have to actually be about the right subject. Doubtless you will find it equally remarkable that I read actually read references before using them.Andrewjlockley (talk) 03:08, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure you realise this in some abstract theoretical sense. But your editing provides numerous demonstrations that it doesn't happen in practice. Ah well, I didn't really expect this to go anywhere useful William M. Connolley (talk) 08:28, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Do you think I just don't listen to people? Why do you think my editing gets better then? Am I visited by angels at night, who re-wire my brain?Andrewjlockley (talk) 12:55, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think your editing gets better William M. Connolley (talk) 23:02, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Greenfinger

I have nominated Greenfinger, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Greenfinger (2nd nomination). Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Atmoz (talk) 17:19, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Stephen Salter

I am absolutely stunned to see that this article has not been deleted once, but twice. This was one of the articles I had intended to create back in 2004 but had completely forgotten about until I saw it in your contributions. You may be interested to know that the San Francisco Public Library has some good sources on the subject, however I no longer live in California. From what I recall, there was good information in a number of publications from the U.S. Navy. Hang in there! Viriditas (talk) 23:23, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I didn't know it had been deleted. He's def. notable!Andrewjlockley (talk) 23:45, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

RFC/USER discussion concerning you (Andrewjlockley)

Hello, Andrewjlockley. Please be aware that a request for comments has been filed concerning your conduct on Wikipedia. The RFC entry can be found by your name in this list, and the actual discussion can be found at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Andrewjlockley, where you may want to participate. -- William M. Connolley (talk) 22:30, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I reverted you. [10] That's not the place for discussion. Update your statement, or use the Wikipedia Talk page. -Atmoz (talk) 19:57, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes whoops I spotted you did that, thanks! I forgot the local rules.Andrewjlockley (talk) 20:07, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Advice

Try to confine yourself to less than 1 revert a day per article. If you revert more than that, you're going to find yourself in hot water, regardless of the rules. Always remember the golden rule: Those who have the gold, make the rules. Viriditas (talk) 10:23, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I generally do. When didn't I?Andrewjlockley (talk) 10:24, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not saying you don't. I'm just saying you need to be careful. And it might be best if you step away from your current conflicts and try to work on something else for a while. Viriditas (talk) 10:27, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm only interested in GW stuff. I don't see the current situation as a conflict, I see it as a dynamic subject which needs continual work, which is often controversial. Adise from WMC, who seems able to have an argument with a loaf of bread, it's all fairly even tempered.Andrewjlockley (talk) 10:37, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

You realize he started an RFC against you? The next step is arbitration. You are aware of the dispute resolution process? If I were you, I would take a step back. Or not. Good luck. Viriditas (talk) 10:51, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I commented on the RFC. Don't know the process really. It seems like a telling off. What actually happens.Andrewjlockley (talk) 10:55, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, the RFC is one of the first steps in dispute resolution and justifies the opening of a future arbitration case against you. I suspect you aren't aware of this, which is why I'm telling you to take it easy. Viriditas (talk) 11:15, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

What happens in arbitration? I don't mind being told off, but I do mind getting blocked.Andrewjlockley (talk) 13:29, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Review past arbitration cases for a flavor of what the process is like. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 16:17, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Re: Subscriptions

Regarding this, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange. You can make a request for an article here. Also see the editors listed in Category:Wikipedians by access to a digital library. You may also want to check your remote access privileges with your local public or academic library. If that doesn't help, contact me. Viriditas (talk) 23:51, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Consequences of inaccurate edit summaries

You just got William M. Connolley protecting the inaccurate language "warming is expected to continue after 2100, even in the absence of new emissions" again by using an inaccurate edit summary. Your revert here [11] mentions that you're reverting "WMC" when you were actually reverting Q Science [12]. Even though your edit actually includes the "undo" language referencing Q Science, William M. Connolley reverted your revert, presumably because you claimed you were reverting William M. Connolley! It's absurd, and it's not totally your fault, but it probably wouldn't have happened if you hadn't named the wrong person in the edit summary. Because I don't think I'm helping to improve the article any more, I'm not planning on editing either Global warming or its talk page in the near future, but I really don't want bad language I inserted to stick around. Please write edit summaries, but please be careful with them. - Enuja (talk) 00:06, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

WMC inserted that text (by carefully choosing that revert) after ignoring Atmoz consensual edit. The fact that Qscience then deleted my revert is largely irrelevant. It was WMC who (with a snotty edit summary) bumped out Atmoz' version and put bad science in its place. I've been abused on summaries so often I thought it was only fair to point out that a serious scientific error had been made.Andrewjlockley (talk) 01:23, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

There is no scientific error in that text. Sorry. Perhaps you should actually read it - and WMC's rationale? Unless you can actually understand this - i don't think that you should edit anything.... --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 02:06, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

It says that in the absence of further emissions, warming will continue after 2100. No evidence has been put forward to support this. It's probably right, but it's not proven. At best, it's grossly misleading. At worst, it's completely wrong.Andrewjlockley (talk) 02:10, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Ask yourself a question... What is the timescale for stop in new emissions, mentioned in the lede? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:38, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I think it will runaway but convential wisdome is about 100yrs and then persistence for 1000ish.Andrewjlockley (talk) 22:32, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Greenfinger AfD redirect

FYI: I have reverted the redirect of Greenfinger and asked the closing admin to review the situation. – 74  04:07, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

O2

Is the O2 depletion because of warming oceans resulting in lower dissolved oxygen? If so, it would be useful to say that. If not, it would be useful to say why! Thanks, Awickert (talk) 17:08, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

expanded. check study.Andrewjlockley (talk) 17:15, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, unfortunately, I'm a scientist who likes facts, so if it wouldn't be too much to ask to expand "a variety of methods", to which ones they are, I'd appreciate it. Awickert (talk) 17:24, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Done, hope you like it.Andrewjlockley (talk) 18:13, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Re-wrote it so it's much more direct. Thanks. Don't know if you watch talk pages you comment on, hopefully my username reply is satisfactory. : ) (talk) ~18:25, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

B&A

At it again! Could you connect your new Buffet and Archer paragraph to the previous one? It sounds like it's re-stating some things, probably better to incorporate details up there. Awickert (talk) 18:25, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

It's not new, I just expanded it. Will fix now.Andrewjlockley (talk) 18:30, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Ah, crap, that was my fault, when I added the sentence that you just deleted to the preceding paragraph, I forgot to delete your old one that I had moved a reference for the new. I still think that the time-scale that you deleted is important, and that they should be part of the same paragraph, based on the topic sentence which talks about both. Awickert (talk) 18:44, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

B&A note both chronic and catastrophic effects from memAndrewjlockley (talk) 18:49, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I agree, but the time-scales should be included: rapid for permafrost (still have that in from my edit), millenial+ from clathrates. Awickert (talk) 18:53, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

OK are you gonna do the edit or shall I.Andrewjlockley (talk) 19:14, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

OK - did it. I don't like to mess too much with other peoples' stuff while they're editing, hence the talk page back-and-forth. Awickert (talk) 19:41, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Expanding it now, thxAndrewjlockley (talk) 19:49, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I re-sectioned the feedback bit. Please tell me what you think.Andrewjlockley (talk) 19:59, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks - I like it - I really like small summary chunks that give the main ideas. Awickert (talk) 20:13, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Can you have a look at the adaptation section I've done? I'd like you to expand it if you can, and preferably add citations instead of the tag i've added. In general, it would be 'really helpful if you can fiddle with my edits a bit. That way, when WMC et al come in, they won't just immediately revert everything I've done without even reading it.Andrewjlockley (talk) 20:24, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Sure - if you respond to my talk page question about what adaptation and mitigation are, as the article leaves me unsure of their GW definitions. Awickert (talk) 20:40, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

outdent

• Mitigation - stopping making it worse
• Geoengineering - making it better
• Adaptation - making it cause less damage

There are also links to the main wiki articles in this sectionAndrewjlockley (talk) 20:49, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

OK - thanks - I actually meant on the GW talk page, because it seems like there isn't a consensus on this, especially after seeing your comment on WMC's talk page. It could be good to copy/paste your commments there for future reference (again, I would do it for you, but I don't want to move your stuff).

I've done a really careful, stepwise edit on the sections which will hopefully please all comers. See what you think. This reflects the lead.Andrewjlockley (talk) 02:29, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your edits, but I still think that geoeng should fall under mitigation. Perhaps move this discussion to the GW talk page? Awickert (talk) 02:36, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for moving to the GW TP, will be there shortly. Awickert (talk) 02:54, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Good deal

Things are rocky, but I think you've figured out this place. Good job. Awickert (talk) 10:00, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Not sure I get you?Andrewjlockley (talk) 10:02, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I mean that it seems like you've got the drill: find sources, write some stuff, discuss if there are issues, wear armor plating. You're going about things properly. Awickert (talk) 10:53, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Similar to the way I've always done it, but now I just use sources that are completely impenetrable to general readers. Seems to keep people off my back.Andrewjlockley (talk) 01:48, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, that's what Wikipedia is for - taking the knowledge and disseminating it. Awickert (talk) 02:06, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Arctic coastal erosion

And on a new tack, I mentioned this to you earlier: here is an AGU abstract on arctic coastal erosion. I've seen the video they talk about; if I find it online somewhere, I'll let you know. Awickert (talk) 11:07, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I think i built that into the arctic shrnkage articleAndrewjlockley (talk) 20:17, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

It's not, but I'll try to remember to tell you when there's a journal article on it. Awickert (talk) 20:24, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Comment on Talk:Arctic geoengineering and the common septic..

How exactly does your own personal interpretation of what is correct or not[13] differ from septics trying to push the latest septic paper? (i'll bet you 10:1 that i can find your comment about the IPCC almost word for word repeated by a POV pusher in the exact opposite direction). For good or bad: Established research by authoritative organs weights more than personal interpretations. Your original research on what you think constitutes a trend or not is, while interesting, irrelevant. (look up discussions about the 2008/2009 cold winter, and downward "trend" in the temperature record on Talk:Global warming - you can find your comment mirrored there...) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:01, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I've replied on the TP. Your apparent blind faith in the IPCC's reports is deeply concerning, and not reflected by senior scientists.Andrewjlockley (talk) 08:09, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Regional climate change

Andrew, thanks for starting Regional climate change. I really, really suggest that you read some background first and then write up the article. At the moment you seem to be writing things off the top of your head. There's no need to have more than a stub at this point -- if someone tries to delete the article I will fight them and they will lose. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 22:19, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm goign to fact tag my work and then add citations. I'm still not sure abotu the title yet, see GW TP discussion. I am very happy doing this kind of work if people ask me. Writing lots of scrappy stuff and then cleaning it up later. I'm goign to fairy it in a bit.Andrewjlockley (talk) 22:37, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

To avoid this problem in the future, just create these types of proto-articles in your user space first, and then use the move feature when you are ready to publish. Viriditas (talk) 23:08, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

OK, I didn't realise how sketchy it was going to be when i started, normally they are ok straight away but this is a big one and i need to structure it first. Thanks for the reminder tho, I will make sure i build with quality next time.Andrewjlockley (talk) 23:11, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Here is a link to your user space. You can read more about how to use it here. Viriditas (talk) 23:17, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Useful resources: IPCC TAR chapter 10, IPCC AR4 chapter 11. (Yes, I know you think IPCC is too conservative, but these chapters give a good overview of the climate features that are relevant for different regions.) If you have any trouble finding specific articles just let me know. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:02, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I will work them in. To be clear, I think that the IPCC is out of date, as AR4 is based on experiments finished in 04/05 mainly. It also IS conservative, in that it ignored known processes which were likely to accellerate AGW or its effects; ice-sheet dynamics, carbon cycle feedback, etc.Andrewjlockley (talk) 09:46, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) URLs would be handy Boris as my internet is knackered atmAndrewjlockley (talk) 10:06, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

WMC

This is unbelievably petty and vindictive. I am deeply disappointed. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 22:29, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

It's a legit and completely factual edit to an article that was unbalanced. I've done loads of personal articles. Look at my edit history. I didn't go looking for the article. When I found it, I felt it misrepresented the guy. I'm really annoyed I've been accused of trolling, as if I've committed some kind of blasphemy. Is WMC's block history somehow irrelevant to an article that's notable almost entirely for his work on WP? Should I avoid any WP:BLP on anyone I've ever met or conversed with? Clearly not. So please have some respect for my legitimacy as an editor.Andrewjlockley (talk) 00:21, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

It's trolling, and you should not have done it. And please, don't try to come up with excuses for these kind of edits. We weren't born yesterday. Don't let it happen again. If you feel the need to do something like this, take a break and walk outside. You will get blocked for this kind of thing; word to the wise. Viriditas (talk) 07:04, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not going to accept this warning, yesterday, today or tomorrow - because I'm not a troll. If I know something about someone, or I think an article lacks balance or doesn't scan well, I'll edit. Quite frankly, I don't give a monkey's if people don't like my edits. They're free to use the normal editing process, tagging and talk page to sort out the issue and get to consensus. If you ignore all the personal abuse I've received, the process worked just fine in this instance, with the only problem being the premature removal of the neutrality tag. You might have a case if I'd never done a biog of a scientist before, but I've done loads. Look at the edit history, and don't assume guilt, trolling or badfaith.Andrewjlockley (talk) 08:29, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Then I guarantee you that this account will have a very short life. Viriditas (talk) 08:36, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I humbly apologise for my edit. I should have realised that people would assume WP:BADFAITH and saved myself the hassle. Perhaps I ought to stop doing BLPs full stop, just in case people use them as another excuse to snipe at me? Quite frankly, I don't give a monkey's about BLPs. Who looks up Stephen Salter, Katherine Richardson etc, anyway? I might as well save myself the hassle and leave them as redlinks if I'm going to be risking this kind of abuse ever time I write about someone I know. Or maybe it's only WP editors I'm not supposed to write about? Eugene Gordon didn't complain when I put his mug up on the greenfinger article, and that's a far more significant claim. (Yes, I did tell him)Andrewjlockley (talk) 09:01, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Your apology is misplaced. It needs to be added to User talk:William M. Connolley, in a new section titled, "Apology". Viriditas (talk) 09:06, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Errr... I think you miss my point.Andrewjlockley (talk) 11:57, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

No, I got the sarcasm loud and clear. I just ignored it, hoping you would see the light of reason. You'll learn one way or the other. Some people like to learn the hard way, and maybe you are that type of person. Viriditas (talk) 12:01, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

As a result of this wholly unwarranted vilification, I'm going to stop making any contributions to any WP:BLP article about an editor, as the threats, abuse, accusations, etc. I've received are completely unacceptable. I am also going to keep to a bare minimum of edits on BLP articles elsewhere. I will generally restrict myself to putting tiny stubs up, solely to avoid a redlink. As a result of this, I hope not to see a repeat of this disgraceful abuse at any further point during my time on WP. I'd very much appreciate an apology from those who've accused me of being a WP:TROLL.Andrewjlockley (talk) 21:15, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Do you want me to give you the same sarcastic apology you gave me above? I didn't call you a troll, I said you were trolling. Is it the same thing? I don't think you are a troll, but you have recently taken your dispute with WMC to the next level, and that's a place you don't want to go. Look, if I was involved in a long, protracted dispute with WMC, and I was upset about him adding fact tags to articles I had created, and then I went to his biographical article to add the very same fact tags out of spite, and then I reverted anyone who tried to stop me, what would you call me? Let me know if I didn't describe your behavior accurately. Please note, I have not signed your RFC because I gave you the benefit of the doubt and had faith you would learn the wiki way and improve your relationship with other editors. I'm very close to signing it now, and frankly I don't know what is stopping me. Viriditas (talk) 07:32, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

It's not personal against you particularly. I've had loads of abuse. I'm ending this here, and I'm ending it now - I'm just not doing edits on BLPs of editors anymore because I don't trust the system. That's the end of the matter. Despite having created about 10 science biogs, the vast majority of which are uncontroversial, you've now lost my services as an editor.Andrewjlockley (talk) 09:18, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Can you at least try to be rational for one minute? Throwing the baby out with the bathwater isn't a solution. Tell you what, since you have resolved this problem (for now) why not just blank or archive this discussion? Ok? And I still haven't signed the RFC because I'm holding out hope. Or am I being irrational? Viriditas (talk) 09:56, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I see no reason to blank. I am being rational. I come here to edit AGW articles. I dont give a stuff about BLPs, and if I'm going to get a load of abuse every time I write something critical (even if it's true) then I'm not going to bother working on them. When you've got a process that doesn't assume WP:BADFAITH, then get back to me. Until then, someone else will have to do the BLPs cos I can't be bothered with the hatemail.Andrewjlockley (talk) 10:51, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Although what you write is true, I believe that it is partially due to your own experience with William. While this is not necessarily a bad thing, I think it affected your additions and I disagree with the way that the information was presented. Instead of being worked into the rest of the text as part of the pre-developed story of his edits to Wikipedia (including his blocking at one point), it was tagged onto the end. The wording "repeatedly blocked" is less NPOV than something like "blocked several times", and the whole sentence was written with an accusatory tone. These are nuances, but it is BLP. And I hate driveby fact tagging without even notes as to what could be improved, though this is perhaps tangential.

Perhaps I have my own way of doing things, but if there were ever a Wikipedia article about you, I would not insert your issues early-on in editing Wikipedia into the article. These include your obvious disdain for published work except as a way to put reference labels by your POV-statements, your cherry picking of sources, your expectation of other editors to clean up after you, and your blatant mis-citations (which strongly bothered me, as you were citing scientists for items that they either didn't write or even contradicted, which has the potential to affect their reputation on a public venue like Wikipedia). Yes, things have gotten better with your editing. However, since you felt that it was fit to write critical remarks about another editor, I thought it fit to remind you of previous issues that you have had, to keep it all in perspective.

As to issues in particular, as I have said before, please feel free to ask me on my talk page if you would like a semi-third-party view on any article. Also, I've always found that writing detailed talk page comments describing exactly why I'm doing what I'm doing, as opposed to arguing with another editor, is much more productive and avoids any misunderstandings. Yes, it takes more time, but it is worth it in the long run. Awickert (talk) 07:18, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I understand your points and it is for this reason I now decline to make substantial contributions to {{WP:BLP]] articles in the future - they are just too sensitive (especially if you know the person). I'm sure my original edit could have been done better, but it was no worse than a 'normal' edit by a 'normal' editor. I still think the WMC article can and should be improved, as it specifically focusses on his WP career and in that regard lacks balance IMO. My attempts to use a tag were (I thought) a reasonable way of dealing with this as I was being accused of WP:POV. Now however, I am simply not getting involve any more, as: frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn. I've got important work to do telling the world about non-linear climate change and ways it might be controlled. Wasting time on rarely visited WP:BLP entries is simply not on my do list when it results in 400+ words of character analysis/assasination.Andrewjlockley (talk) 12:46, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Careful

Please be more careful when reverting. When you undid Stephan's changes to Global warming you also stomped on a lot of work that I had been doing to make the article more readable. Given the prominence of this article (20,000+ views per day) I'm trying to polish the prose, but that's pointless if someone keeps reverting over the top of it all. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 16:41, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

oops really really sorry. I thought i only rv a tiny bit.Andrewjlockley (talk) 16:46, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Don't

You aren't welcome on my talk page. -Atmoz (talk) 02:18, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Stop being ridiculous. I suggest you take a night off WP, you're not in the right frame of mind to be editing.Andrewjlockley (talk) 02:22, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I've put a TP section to discuss this issue here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Regional_effects_of_global_warming#Stubification Andrewjlockley (talk) 02:31, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Clouds - and WP:OR

Have you read these references[14]? Please point out to me, where exactly the references support your assertion? To help you: Here is the full first paper[15], and here is the second[16] - now would be the time to tell me where. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:36, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

To spell it out: Where exactly do the 2 papers mention that current GCM's make a bad representation. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:38, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Because they detail processes that aren't even understood yet, as they're newly-researched. They're not, therefore, in GCMs. See here if you need more http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering/browse_thread/thread/34bb255fd15f9ec4 Andrewjlockley (talk) 15:45, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

"recent research suggests that current climate models do not represent them properly" is too squishy to be useful. What does "properly" mean? One can argue that theory doesn't represent anything in the physical world properly, from clouds to galaxies, because there's always more to be discovered. It's also wrong -- we've known from the earliest days of the field (not from "recent research") that clouds are hard. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:51, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Methane

I assume you mean enteric fermentation in cows, and not the way you wrote it....? Awickert (talk) 18:17, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, have you fixed? Andrewjlockley (talk) 21:32, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Fixed Andrewjlockley (talk) 23:49, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Caution

When continually reinserting your material over multiple objections please keep in mind the three-revert rule. I'll confess that I'm not a fan of your editing style but I have no interest in seeing you blocked. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 22:24, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I am careful of it - I'm on 2 today with AGW. I've fixed objections at every point. This whole process would be a lot easier if ppl just did little fixes instead of axing huge blocks of text. Andrewjlockley (talk) 22:27, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

It would also be easier if you brought the suggested text up on the talk page before putting them in the article space.... Awickert (talk) 22:32, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah I do that for the lead now - after today's beasting I will do that for the bigger edits in the article. PS sorry for missing a repair that was asked for by WMC. Fixed now! Andrewjlockley (talk) 22:45, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Don't worry about it - remember that when you edit GW and related topics, you edit highly-watched, highly-viewed articles. As a general rule, before I edit any FA or high-traffic article, I propose my specific additions on the talk page, wait 24 hours (or more if there are objections), straighten everything out (including the text to be added, if I have to), and then add. It's slower, yes, but I prefer it to conflict on the article page. On less-watched articles (regional effects of GW, geoeng, or whereever you like to hang out), it's OK to just to make the edits - though especially if you expect them to become more high-profile (like Regional Effects), it's probably a good idea to ask if you aren't sure about anything.

Giving opportunity for comment also changes the social dynamic - instead of the true experts feeling like they're doing damage control, you give them opportunity for input.

Just some thoughts. Awickert (talk) 01:44, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

DOI

Thanks for the tip, but please don't be so condescending about it next time. I was following the instructions at wp:DOI which currently reads:

An alternate approach is to use CitationBot to improve the link still further:

• {{cite journal|10.1016/j.iheduc.2008.03.001}}

which will be parsed to:

• {{cite journal | doi = 10.1016/j.iheduc.2008.03.001 | title = Web 2.0 authorship: Issues of referencing and citation for academic integrity | year = 2008 | author = Gray, K | journal = The Internet and Higher Education | volume = 11 | pages = 112}}

And presented as:

• Gray, K (2008). "Web 2.0 authorship: Issues of referencing and citation for academic integrity". The Internet and Higher Education. 11: 112. doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2008.03.001.

- NJGW (talk) 23:32, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I was just messing - sorry if you took it the wrong way. Your structure won't auto-fill, mine will (I think). Best Andrewjlockley (talk) 23:34, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

If that's true, then someone needs to change wp:DOI. NJGW (talk) 23:36, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Yours just ended up with cite journal doi = xxxxxx, and no button to fill it. It's been bust before - it wouldn't surpirse me if it was still bust. Andrewjlockley (talk) 23:39, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I put "<ref>{{cite journal|10.1029/2008GL036465}}</ref>", which looks to me like what the instructions call for (someone else changed it later). Correct me if I'm wrong. NJGW (talk) 23:46, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Swap DOI for journal and it will work. Watch it do it's thing. Andrewjlockley (talk) 23:49, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I get that. It's what you said already. What I'm saying is "then someone needs to change wp:DOI."[17] NJGW (talk) 23:53, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Maybe just chat to the bot operator and tell them it's broken. Andrewjlockley (talk) 23:55, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

You are very unclear. It's sometimes hard to understand what you mean. I changed the instructions to the syntax you say works. NJGW (talk) 23:58, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

It totally confused me when i started using it. The bot operator can also fix it. Andrewjlockley (talk) 00:01, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Check your archives: I told you all about this bot ages ago - around the time I got frustrated because you weren't listening. But the citation bot isn't working right now; it's operator is away and it was blocked for some issues. Awickert (talk) 01:53, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah I know, thanks for that. It's still a tricky thing to use tho Andrewjlockley (talk) 07:15, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I'll let you know when it's up and running again. You have to add a script to your userspace here, check User:Citation bot/use. Awickert (talk), sometime after 07:15 on 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Done. Maybe you can check it in some way for me? Andrewjlockley (talk) 07:34, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Which article? 16:02, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Just the install I did. Dunno if I did it right. Andrewjlockley (talk) 22:52, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I can't check your user preferences; if you have extra options on the left (under "reference formatting"), then you did it right. Awickert (talk) 23:31, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

It's on. God knows what it does tho Andrewjlockley (talk) 23:56, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I was wrong - I can see it on your page, looks like you did it correctly. Just click on the preferred method of reference formatting (I generally do the auto-fast), and let the bot do its thing. It still appears to be down, though. Awickert (talk) 08:45, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

It's working now. Awickert (talk) 19:18, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Warning about edit-wars and WP:3RR

Please read up on WP:EDITWAR and WP:3RR, since this comment shows that you've misunderstood it. 3RR is not an "allowance"... You can be blocked for edit-warring without reaching 3RR.

I know that the next comment will probably end up like every other comment about this so far, in the WP:IDHT pile that you've built up. But please reflect on the fact that you are the starter of all those edit-wars, by ignoring consensus, and insisting on inserting (and reinserting) things without discussion. Discuss first (<-- thats the point you ignore every time) when you are inserting new things into the Global warming article, and especially because you have built up a general distrust from most of the regular editors --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 10:11, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

You don't need to discuss things first every time - especially when they're not controversial, such as a grammar fix. Making a change to an article does NOT constitute 'starting an edit war'. I don't see why you're picking on my edits when Atmoz recently axed about 600-odd words out of the GW article without such as a mention on the TP. Andrewjlockley (talk) 10:28, 12 April 2009 (UTC) Can you point to an instance when you allege "Refusal to 'get the point'" Andrewjlockley (talk) 10:34, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Atmoz doesn't get reverted - you do... Think about that for a while and try to determine where consensus lies then. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 11:29, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Both WMC and Atmoz openly state they revert my edits without reading them. They are responsible for c.90% of my reverts. That's not WP:CONSENSUS, that's WP:HARRASMENT. Andrewjlockley (talk) 11:47, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Then take it up on WP:AN/I. But i suggest that you consider *again*, why they aren't reverted - while *you* are. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 11:52, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I read all of AJL's edits before reverting them. To say that I don't misrepresents what I have previously posted. -Atmoz (talk) 18:15, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

The problem is deep and involves your reason for editing here. As stated elswhere, you are not here to write an encyclopedia. You are here to save the world ... by telling the truth[18]. This strong POV is further illustrated on your user page where you state: I want to tell the world how bad the science tells us things have gotten. Your 20 years experience in environmental campaigning explains your editing - you are still campaining rather than writing an encyclopedia. The accumulating evidence seems to be indicating a need for a topic ban. Vsmith (talk) 13:19, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

A topic ban is definitely in order. Unfortunately there always is a constituency that opposes any topic ban -- fringers, the WR team, whatever. If the topic ban doesn't fly for some reason it will only embolden AJL in his misbehavior. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:33, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I would gladly let someone else deal with AJL on the GW article. Since he has been pushing his geoengineering stuff, I have removed many of the entries from my watchlist because I really don't want to deal with it. However, the GW article is too important for his POV pushing and needs to be squished. People have tried to be accommodating to him, but I'm afraid that appeasement hasn't worked. He needs to understand that his editing is unacceptable, and if the only way that happens is if all of his edits get reverted, then so be it. -Atmoz (talk) 18:15, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

You confuse being interested in a topic with POV pushing. Just because I edit GW/geoeng stuff doesn't mean I can't make decent edits on them. If you actually look at my history, you'll see I've done loads of successful edits on GW and created loads of articles which have survived partisan AfD attemtps. The current stated practice of WMC and Atmoz of reverting my edits without reading them is WP:HARRASMENT and is totally unacceptable. Andrewjlockley (talk) 21:42, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Atomz says he reads them. Keeping the facts in line. Awickert (talk) 22:57, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

If I didn't think editing GW stuff on WP performed a valuable social function, I wouldn't bother. I'm always grateful for decent feedback on how to edit better. Don't confuse my tongue in cheek hyperbolae with bald factual statements of my alleged POV. Andrewjlockley (talk) 22:05, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Can you clarify you last statement please? Do you mean that you think Wikipedia performs a valuable social function in addition to being an encyclopedia? If so, what would that be? -Atmoz (talk) 23:46, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

For clarity, I quote Atmoz: "Your edits to the global warming page get reverted on site. If someone else wants them in, they can add them back in. -Atmoz (talk) 01:52, 12 April 2009 (UTC)" Maybe he reads them first then reverts them anyway. It matters little. (PS Atmoz has in the past been really helpful on some stuff, but on some issues he's been tricky. This is one.)

As regards the social function issue, let me put nail my colours to the mast in a public, non-tongue in cheek way. I think that:

• As an encyclopedia, WP performs a valuable social function, and I'm happy to contribute to that goal.
• On GW etc, to perform that function it needs to include the current best science about many aspects of the phenomenon and proposed actions.
• Knowledge on WP should be represented without political bias. In the case of GW this means that no subject should be 'taboo' for fear of endangering some societal 'consensus' view on solutions. Coverage should be balanced according to the varying notability of differing responses or viewpoints, in accordance with WP policy.
• GW (the article) holds special status on WP for several reasons: Firstly, it's a featured article. Secondly, it's a controversial and rapidly developing subject area. Thirdly, it is a topic area which has huge social consequences when compared to other popular articles (e.g those about pop culture). For these reasons high standards are rightly applied.
• My contribution to WP in this general area is solely based on the principles above. I am not here to 'push' a viewpoint. I have areas of interest and I am keen to make sure that they are accurately and adequately covered on WP. I don't wish to breach any of the policies of WP or the statements I've outlined above by improving coverage of any area. For comparison, just because I was interested in improving coverage of gerbils, this would not mean I think that they are the most important animals in any way.

I hope the above clarifies my position. In summary, I am entitled to a have a personal opinion on any topic, but I am not interested in abusing WP to push any opinions I may hold. I fully accept this and do not seek to challenge it.Andrewjlockley (talk) 00:07, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Hydraulic geoengineering

An article that you have been involved in editing, Hydraulic geoengineering, has been listed for deletion. Some of the material is useful but the term "hydraulic geoengineering" itself does not appear to be commonly accepted, and thus should not have a Wikipedia article. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hydraulic geoengineering. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 20:53, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Hydraulic engineering?

Please don't copy/paste an entire article into this space. First, massive, and >80% of the time, far-fetched ideas, shouldn't constitute the majority of the article. Second, the original article already exists, though now that I'm here, I see it's up for deletion - why not just "see also". Third, the field of hydraulic engineering is much more about the physical than the chemical - though the chemical can be considered. For that reason, the whole oxygenation part is hugely overstated. It would be more relevant if the hydraulic engineering methods were actually discussed. Yes, it is a stub. It is also on my to-do list. It's simply that your recent edits do not represent what hydraulic engineers spend 99% of their time doing. If you were an IP, I would think of this as very strange POV-pushing; as-is, I believe that you are doing this because you're afraid the material will be lost. Find sources, deal with the AfD, and in the meantime, don't copy/paste the AfD article into a different article. Thank you, Awickert (talk) 16:27, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Useful! Yes, I was looking for a home for the material. Can you suggest article(s) - existing or new - where it can be put. Andrewjlockley (talk) 16:35, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Will have to read the AfD first, see if its the content or its standalone status. Awickert (talk) 16:49, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Content clearly needs a cleanup, but a move would suffice - it was nominated due to WP:NEOLOGISM. Andrewjlockley (talk) 19:59, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Disregard for consensus and process

This leaves me dumbfounded. It is becoming increasingly obvious that you care nothing for Wikipedia's community ethos and should apply your talents in a different venue. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 16:52, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

You amaze me. I only added it because you suggested building up the section and splitting it out. If that no longer represents your view, revert the edit. Andrewjlockley (talk) 19:58, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

For clarity, whilst I think having two separate articles in one is confusing (and very poor for SEO) I'm not interested in working further on this as my principle objective of making sure that the topics weren't factually inaccurate has been completed. All I was trying to do by tagging was to leave a marker for future editors who might want to build up and split out the section, as was discussed. People should not be so quick to assume WP:BADFAITH. Just because I'm in a minority on a debate doesn't mean I am hell-bent on sabotaging the WP project. Andrewjlockley (talk) 20:27, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

A very bad explanation. The merge/redirect went into effect at 13:50 [19], at 14:52 [20] you inserted a request to recreate the article by splitting. ... with no edits to the subsection in between. So you effectively accepted the consensus for 62 minutes. Nice going. Now try to reread what Boris proposed again (....something about doing something first and *then* consider splitting). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:33, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I accept it now and I always did. What I should have done was added a discussion on the TP to explain my tag. I thought about it but I didn't do it because I was too lazy. I should have done and I apologise for doing half a job. I was not sulking. I am not that sad and petty - despite the commonly held impression that I am! Andrewjlockley (talk) 20:36, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Added an overdue TP comment. Apologies for any lack of clarity earlier. Andrewjlockley (talk) 20:51, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

(ec)I'm impressed. It seems that you think that you can at the same time accept the consensus that it shouldn't be its own article, and attempt to recreate it as its own article.... Perhaps something has broken in my logic circuits - but it just doesn't fit. (core dump: paradox detected). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:53, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not attempting to recreate it. I'm specifically saying I'm not doing anything further on it. It's accurate and I don't care beyond that. Sorry you didn't like my suggested solution. I accept the consensus. End of. Andrewjlockley (talk) 20:57, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

(ec)"I'm not attempting to recreate it." <-- well jog my memory here then. What is it that {{split-section}} means? (as Franquin would have said: "flebelebe...") --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:52, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Gawd, will this never end.... Splitsection states (for memory) 'It has been suggested that this section be split into a separate article'. This is a simple statement of fact. Boris suggested it, as I recall. Andrewjlockley (talk) 22:51, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

The uncharitable view would be that you are deliberately misrepresenting what I wrote. More likely, your oft-demonstrated tendency to hear only what you want to hear has taken over. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:03, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps if you would actually hear what's being said, and come to some sort of self-realization.... Now Boris didn't suggest that it should be split - in fact i pointed this out above (which you apparently didn't hear/read): something is missing before it could be split - isn't there? (could it be.... (drumroll)... a rewrite, an expansion, (several other issues come to mind)...

But lets make it simple: When *you* insert that tag - *you* are proposing to split it! --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:08, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Does the splitsection tag mean 'this is ready for splitting right now'? Not in my view. I take it to mean: 'One day this might grow wings and fly away'. I feel I've adequately explained myself. I've also explained this on the aTP. I've apologised for any misunderstanding. I'm not one for archiving, because it takes away the right of reply, but please accept my explanation and apology, and drop it. Andrewjlockley (talk) 23:14, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that is exactly what the tag means. It notifies people who watch the page, and external editors who watch Category:Articles to be split. See: WP:SPLIT. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:53, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't get your point. Are you saying that I used the tag wrongly? I still don't understand why it was technically wrong (as opposed to inappropriate). Andrewjlockley (talk) 00:22, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Unacceptable

This[21] comment is unacceptable. And i've removed it - try again. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 09:48, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Stop adding nonsense to Easter article

Anglo-Saxons didn't come into close contact with Easter until around 500 A.D., by which time Easter had already been celebrated in the Mediterranean for centuries, so saying that Easter as a Christian celebration originated from Anglo-Saxon paganism (rather than being a Christianized version of the Jewish Passover) is absolute nonsense. AnonMoos (talk) 11:20, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

The name's Anglo Saxon. The festival is based on Graeco-Roman traditions, as I said in the edit. The article was complete rubbish, and desparately needed attention. It treats Easter as if it was a Christian invention, which may be what Christians would like people to believe, but sadly it's nonsense. Andrewjlockley (talk) 13:43, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

The problem with your position is that these things are actually *knowable*. It's not like we're pointing to events and practices lost in the mists of an unrecorded past, like when we reconstruct a Proto Indo-European homeland, for example. There are historical records, and they overwhelmingly point to Christians celebrating (and fighting over when to celebrate) Easter for centuries before any Germanic speaking lands were Christianized. There is also, of course, extrapololation from Bede, but an honest historical synthesis must conclude that a pagan name (and perhaps practice) was grafted onto what had been a Christian holiday for centuries. I suggest you look at wishful thinking on the 'pagan Easter' side as well as on the Christian side. Ben (talk) 16:08, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Butting in: In modern usage, Easter refers primarily to Pascua, the Christian celebration of the resurrection of Jesus, and not to its namsake germanic pagan holiday, and therefore the article should represent this. As other users say, historical records unfortunately are scarce in the pre-Christian Germanic world. Awickert (talk) 16:17, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

My central point is that Easter is rough and ready integration of pre-existing pagan festivals and traditions of various origins into a christian framework. It is NOT a christian festival, and should not be presented as sch. WP is not a home for revisionist history from any religious group. Andrewjlockley (talk) 16:37, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Then why does "Easter" link to "Pascua" in other languages? Isn't the lengthy etymology and link enough for the Pagan source? Easter as it is celebrated is about Pascua, not the Germanic festival. It was common Christian tradition to integrate local customs into Christian festivals, yes. But the core was Christian, and [si estuvieramos hablando en español, la conversación aquí de la pascua no occuría] if we were speaking Spanish, the conversation here about easter wouldn't have occurred. See the point? (signed later: Awickert (talk) ~17:20, 13 April 2009 (UTC))

Please sign your comment. The etymology is not my main point, it's the origin of the festival itself that concern me, not the nomenclature. Andrewjlockley (talk) 20:01, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

OK - so that's it - I don't know as much about the pagan origins, though I think that it is clearly more Christian than a Christianized pagan festival.

But to change gears. I read the talk page there. Please behave with some civility. Your spewing of accusations is completely inappropriate, and compared to the folks that edit that page, I really doubt that you are a comparable expert in early Christianity and late Classic/Early Medieval history. I'm beginning to think you enjoy having large numbers of editors move in a whirlwind around you. Let me clarify at risk of breaking civility: we are sick of it.

I don't know whether you are pissed at your articles being downsized by the climate editors, nasty comments from William, or what. You are taking it out on the wrong people. It is an established article, so please don't run in and say it's a bunch of crap. Please don't use your classic mode of operation by editing something way up in the lede that fundamentally changes the article, without discussion.

Please, I don't mind you making messes. But if you're going to drag everyone else in to clean them up, and then insult them, I have absolutely no idea what you're trying to accomplish. Awickert (talk) 21:51, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Maybe I should have TP'd first... I was trying to get some action to improve a fundamentally quite awful article. Seems like it stimulated debate. I wasn't expecting my edits to stick unchanged, but I was expecting and hoping for them to catalyse change. I don't think I insulted anyone, I just pointed out the article was weak. (I didn't edit the lead in isolation, I did section edits too, for the record.) Andrewjlockley (talk) 22:39, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Yeah, I know you did that, too. But most people don't appreciate being told their work is crappy - think about how you feel when people tell you that. There are gentler ways to get the same message across. I also think it's better to TP first, and assume that the people who did the majority of the writing of the article will be more knowledgeable on the subject, especially when thinking of a fundamental change. If you're really interested, you could start looking in some of the primary and secondary historical sources mentioned there; I think it's more socially responsible to follow through than to just stir the anthill. Awickert (talk) 00:17, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Abuse of process

Nominating articles for deletion that you don't think should be deleted is an abuse of process. Please read WP:BEFORE and WP:DEL. Redirecting an article to a more suitable target is an editorial decision. The proper venue is the article talk page, not AfD. -Atmoz (talk) 21:51, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Also, there are 3 steps to completing an AfD. You only get one of them right, you attempt the second but fail, and the third is forgotten. There are easy to follow steps on WP:AfD. -Atmoz (talk) 21:58, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your opinion. I checked the pages you directed me to, but couldn't find the relevant instruction. Can you help me further? I am proposing as I regard the current systematic process of redirection by WMC as an abuse of process, and I'm trying to deal with this in a consensual way, rather than edit-warring. Andrewjlockley (talk) 21:58, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Got your point on the AfD instructions. I will look at it carefully in a bit. Can you explain the other stuff tho? Andrewjlockley (talk) 22:01, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Redirection is an editorial issue and should be discussed on the article talk page. If you want to report edit warring, try WP:AN3 or other incidents requiring administrative intervention should go to WP:ANI. -Atmoz (talk) 22:02, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

You could also try informal or formal mediation. Or the last step in the dispute resolution process is arbitration. -Atmoz (talk) 22:06, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I actually think the AfD process works very well here. On reflection, do you still feel it's not appropriate? I haven't seen anything that suggests you're not allowed to propose AfD to resolve this kind of issue. Andrewjlockley (talk) 22:54, 13 April 2009 (UTC) I don't want to escalate matters unless I am left with no other choice. I've managed to resolve every other edit-skirmish I've been dragged into without crying for mum, so I'm keen not to do it here. However, the whole blanking my articles is doing my head in. If I had to escalate, what's the softest/best/least oafish way of doing so? Andrewjlockley (talk) 23:01, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

2nd sentence ("On reflection...."): Read above: Nominating articles for deletion that you don't think should be deleted is an abuse of process. (you have just about the baddest case of WP:IDHT-attitude, which i have yet to see). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:11, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

OK Kim, what do you think is the most constructive way to deal with an editor who repeatedly redirects pages that I consider to be valid? I'm not trying to abuse the AfD, I think it works well. What do you think is the best way? Note that the editor in question rarely actually edits, nor do they contribute to TPs when redirecting. I'm left wondering what I'm supposed to do to improve the article. The best I get is often a comment such as 'still cr*p', which I struggle to do anything useful with. I often don't even know whether it's the topic or the content that's the issue.Andrewjlockley (talk) 23:18, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

First of all: You seem to be forgetting that more than one editor reverts you (in fact several do) [as i said above: Think about that for a bit]. Second: Atmoz has given you all the correct venues to follow in the above. AN3, ANI, mediation and arbitration. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:41, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Those avenues seem appropriate to making complaints about an editor, should that be needed. However, what I am seeking to do at this stage is not that - it is to have a useful discussion about the redirect and reach consensus. The article's TP is not an appropriate venue as no useful comments have been posted about the post-rewrite version of the article, despite redirects having been made (complete with offensive summaries). Andrewjlockley (talk) 23:52, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia has many avenues for dispute resolution that there is often more than one forum that will be able to help. There are so many that it's hard to keep track of the alphabet soup. Because of our past interactions, it is possible that you may not think I am the correct person to give you advice. Perhaps the best solution would be to ask for editor assistance. This is an informal method of requesting advice from another editor about Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. You may think that the advice you receive there as more impartial than from editors with whom you have had past conflicts. -Atmoz (talk) 00:29, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Nah mate, you're really good on this kinda stuff. Help mucho appreciated. Also, have a look at my new version of long term effects of global warming (I had to put it in the history to avoid 3rr dramas) Andrewjlockley (talk) 00:33, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to butt in, but given the third opinion is out, (there's more than two editors involved), one approach is to ask for a request for comment, which is focused on page content rather than editor conduct. - Bilby (talk) 10:06, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Nice idea. Do you think that the formal, speedy AfD is better than RFC or not? Andrewjlockley (talk) 12:22, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Generally, when an article is nominated for AfD by the author, it is a procedural issue to gain consensus about notability. They're not supposed to decide on the appropriateness of a redirect, although occasionally you'll get a "keep and redirect" as a finding. It wouldn't be the best forum anyway, as a "keep" in AfD doesn't mean that you can't then merge and redirect any content, so while it might give you some support it wouldn't necessarily solve anything. An RfC is a call for other editors to express an opinion, and although slower it tends to be better at finding consensus on article content and the like (presuming that you get sufficient neutral editors who join in). WP:DR may also provide some general advice, or you may wish just to take things slow, try the suggestions on the talk page, and see where discussion heads first. - Bilby (talk) 13:02, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. The problem I am having is with 1 user particularly, who tends to re-direct a lot of my articles unilaterally. The AfD blocks this, but the RfC wouldn't. The user in question is unwilling to (IMO) work constructively to resolve any issues with the articles, so an AfD is still my preferred strategy to deal with disruptive behaviour, if it is occuring. Andrewjlockley (talk) 13:08, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't imagine that an AfD will do anything to stop redirects. You can get the article deleted or kept, and it can find for a redirect, but it can't find against one. That's not AfD's problem. If it is a particular editor, you might want to go through the dispute resolution process. - Bilby (talk) 13:17, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

RfA

Thank you for your note. It's the second time I've been told that, but I have no intention of applying to be an administrator. Deep down, I don't like conflict and conflict-resolution; I'm already spending more time doing that on the climate change series of articles than I'd like to. But although I'm not following up on your suggestion, thank you. I appreciate it. Awickert (talk) 00:23, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Maybe you shouldn't see it as an obligation to do more, but rather as just the freedom to do more if you so choose. And let's fact it, climate change is, was and always will be controversial. Andrewjlockley (talk) 08:29, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks again, but I'm afraid of the slippery slope. As for controversy, I'm planning (again) on backing off of climate on Wiki for a while - so that I actually write articles :-). Awickert (talk) 02:34, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Gawd, it will be like lord of the flies Andrewjlockley (talk) 08:24, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Never read it, know the premise, think we're probably better-off than them. If you really need a hand with something in particular, ask away. Otherwise, I'm going to be doing my real work and adding to the much-ignored articles that are actually in my field of expertise for a change. Someday I might change my mind, but as Buzz Lightyear says "Not today!" Awickert (talk) 05:00, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Is that mainly hydrodynamics / river geology stuff? Andrewjlockley (talk) 08:56, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Yup: rivers, their patterns of flow and bedload sediment transport, and their deposits; I also work with some continuum mechanics of geologic materials and lithosphere and shallow mantle dynamics. I guess I'd be something of a cross between a sedimentary geologist and a geophysicist. Awickert (talk) 17:10, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hydraulic geoengineering

This has ick written all over it. I've requested an uninvolved administrator look at this at ANI. -Atmoz (talk) 20:09, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

• One thing that is not going to happen: reintroducing the same content at a different title. That is WP:CSD#G4, we don't allow that, and we certainly don't allow people to game the system by doing it before the AfD is even cold. The main problem is not just the neologistic title, the entire thing seems to be a novel synthesis from primary sources. Guy (Help!) 20:20, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Well why not tag it so and leave me time to resolve that issue. It wasn't nominated for that issue. If I was gaming I would have created a new page, not done a move. AND I wouldn't have mentioned what i was doing on the TP Andrewjlockley (talk) 20:25, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Why not? Because there was a deletion debate. So do it in user space and when you are ready take it to WP:DRV, that's the process we have. And make sure that whatever title you choose does not fail the Googfle test - hydraulic geoengineering gets 118 hits, mostly Wikipedia and mirrors. Guy (Help!) 07:59, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

• The content is at User:Andrewjlockley/Hydraulic geoengineering2g... I had a little trouble titling it, but it is now workable. As I said, get good references and have some people look over it before trying again to put it in the mainspace. Cheers, LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:19, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Ta Andrewjlockley (talk) 10:28, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations

You now have User:Andrewjlockley /Long term effects of global warming. Please work on it, and invite others to work on it, and when it's OK (measured perhaps by talk page agreement, or not having a disagreement tag on every section) we can move it back into main space William M. Connolley (talk) 22:06, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

That's a circumvention of the AfD process. Please self-revert or I'll move it back. Andrewjlockley (talk) 00:53, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Then it will up for a real AfD (instead of your mucked up attempt at circumvention - which was only closed as keep - because you bungled it). And with all the problems the article has, quite frankly its a mess - it will most likely be deleted (for original research, synthesis, undue weight, POV (take your pick)). Take it this way: You now have a chance to address all of the problems in the article, and once its to the satisfaction of the reviewers, it can be moved back, and be something to be proud of. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 01:24, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

WMC could have proposed this on the TP, but instead we have more judge, jury and executioner. It's not the outcome I object to, it's the apparent high-handed manner in which this one editor sees fit to act. Andrewjlockley (talk) 01:30, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Frankly you bungled it yoursel, by ignoring consensus on the talk page. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 01:42, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Meetup confirmed

The third Cambridge meetup is confirmed for the Free Press pub, 12.30 pm on Tuesday 28 April. Charles Matthews (talk) 13:11, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

You'd probably find this interesting.....

Greenland's 'good news' methane finding --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 13:24, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

as b&a suggest, it's not likely a short term effect. Permafrost is the one to watch Andrewjlockley (talk) 02:16, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

And strangely enough the research is about permafrost... --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 02:43, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

But much of the methane in permafrost isn't in clathrate. It's held in bubbles and as pre-decomopsition organic matter. Andrewjlockley (talk) 14:09, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

User page grammar

I made a change to your user page.[22] Feel free to revert if you don't like it. Viriditas (talk) 08:08, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

No offense, but the "There's currently a fun game..." sounds a bit paranoid and bitter, even though you were trying to be funny. Just wanted to let you know that you appear better off without it. Viriditas (talk) 12:28, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

It WAS funny, for a while. Rmvd it Andrewjlockley (talk) 13:20, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

And what's wrong with being paranoid and bitter? ;-) Andrewjlockley (talk) 13:37, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Another interesting study for you....

You may want to incorporate this one into your many geoengineering stubs in various articles: Ocean carbon: A dent in the iron hypothesis --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:09, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, but I can't view the paper, not even in abstract. I stay away from OIF generally as it's an exceedingly complex geoeng technique, relying heavily on oceanography and marine foodchains, which I know f-all about. I do know enough to have very little confidence that we can 'magic away' carbon by getting some small wet plants to eat it. The reality is far more complex. It's not a 'get out of jail free' card. Andrewjlockley (talk) 01:05, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Not to mention what the biologists think about it... I personally think geologic storage is the only way to go. Do you want the paper? Awickert (talk) 04:30, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Wouldn't hurt! Thx. geologic as in CCS or as in sea-burial or as in perodonite rock?Andrewjlockley (talk) 13:35, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

OK - I'll send it soon. I'm more for CCS in hydrocarbon reservoirs than for the sea burial: less thermodynamic and chemical reaction craziness, and there's a whole industry of people who know exactly what those reservoirs look like and how they respond to pumping stuff through them... but I've read some promising stuff on the ocean too. I think you mean reactions with peridotite? Awickert (talk) 16:44, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Seabed co2 -as-a-solid disposal seems ok. shouldn't diffuse due to surrounding sediment, pressure should keep it stable. eventually it gets subducted.Andrewjlockley (talk) 18:20, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Maybe this is me, but I always thought it was a supercritical fluid down there, and was always worried about how the little critters would fare swimming in supercritical CO2. I know that a lot of work has been done on the various reactions with the mafic mineral phases down there, but I don't know much about it. So would it react quickly and solidify? If so, subduction would take order a million years to get rid of it, if it were right at the trench, and I'd bet there would be some pretty funny patterns of volcanism as a result of the chemical change. Anyway, just rambling - but does it react and become solid? Awickert (talk) 18:54, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I've never been comfortable with liquid phase Andrewjlockley (talk) 22:02, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

WP:IDHT and gaming

Are you capable of learning, listening and adhering to consensus? Because this combined with this, certainly indicates the opposite. The discussion on the merits of the merge/redirect is here. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 11:09, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

There was NO merge - ever. The article was deleted (without AfD) and a redirect was placed to a not-that-closely related article. This is not in accordance with WP:REDIRECT. It is those who repeatedly delete articles without AfDs who are WP:GAMING and breaching WP process, not me. Do it properly, propose it for deletion. Andrewjlockley (talk) 13:49, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

You are aware that 3 admins (2 current and 1 retired) have commented on this - right? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 14:16, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm simply asking, politely and respectfully, for each person who's implemented the redirect to state which speific reason on WP:REDIRECT is applicable to their decision, and why. If they can't do that then they are either a) reckless to the policy b) failing to address my valid concerns. Einstein, Newton, Darwin, etc. have shown, being in a minority of 1 does not mean you're wrong. Andrewjlockley (talk) 14:31, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Wow! The good old Galileo gambit, and used with weight on your own position/opinion.... Perhaps you haven't noticed - but each and everyone has stated their position - and for some strange reason its rather opposite yours..... Perhaps you are indeed the one individual with the truth - but WP works by consensus. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:30, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't care if the consensus ends up being delete, but I do care about having a proper process in this regard before valuable articles are wiped. You broke the rules, I did not. If you can prove me wrong by quoting chapter and verse, I suggest you do so. The fact is you didn't follow WP:REDIRECT. BTW the Galileo gambit accusation is not applicable, because it's hardly a new idea to stick to existing rules, is it? Andrewjlockley (talk) 17:42, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry - but i've had enough of your "i didn't hear that" attitude, everyone but you appears to not understand the rules - including 3 admins. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:29, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I'll ask again: Pretty please, with sugar on top, give me the exact words from WP:REDIRECT that justify what you did. Andrewjlockley (talk) 00:52, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Here's the sugar: Notice how the page you quote is a guideline - while Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Merging is a policy. And will you please start reading WP:NOT#BUREAUCRACY as well as WP:CONSENSUS please! --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 01:18, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Redirects are specifically excluded from discussion on the page you cite as alternatives to deletion. That's because they ARE deletions. You wilfully miss my point. I am NOT going against consensus on what should happen to the article, I am going against the (completely irrelevant) consensus that policy/guidelines/etc don't apply when dealing with AJL articles. Andrewjlockley (talk) 01:23, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Pavel Skachevsky

I have nominated Pavel Skachevsky, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pavel Skachevsky. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Atmoz (talk) 19:46, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Artur Ryno

I have nominated Artur Ryno, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Artur Ryno. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Atmoz (talk) 19:47, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Nasr Javed

I have nominated Nasr Javed, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nasr Javed. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Atmoz (talk) 19:48, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Safwat Hijazi

I have nominated Safwat Hijazi, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Safwat Hijazi. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Atmoz (talk) 19:49, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Wadgy Abd el-Hamied Mohamed Ghoneim

I have nominated Wadgy Abd el-Hamied Mohamed Ghoneim, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wadgy Abd el-Hamied Mohamed Ghoneim. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Atmoz (talk) 19:51, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Yunis Al Astal

I have nominated Yunis Al Astal, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yunis Al Astal. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Atmoz (talk) 19:51, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Abdullah Qadri Al Ahdal

I have nominated Abdullah Qadri Al Ahdal, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abdullah Qadri Al Ahdal. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Atmoz (talk) 19:53, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Milton keynes forum

A tag has been placed on Milton keynes forum requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a company or corporation, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for companies and corporations.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Ironholds (talk) 18:07, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I decided to delete the article, because the civic forum of Milton Keynes is not currently notable. If it is indeed being built up, the article can be recreated at a later date.--Danaman5 (talk) 05:58, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

A holdon is not a guarantee that the article will not be deleted, if the problems with it remain. Would you like me to put the article in your userspace? You can work on it there, and then transfer it to the article space when it is more fleshed out.--Danaman5 (talk) 16:12, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Topic ban to be proposed

This is the last straw. This message serves as notification that I plan to prepare diffs and other evidence requesting that you be banned from editing all articles related to Earth science, broadly construed. You will of course welcome to present rebuttals or other evidence on your behalf. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 13:36, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I did what was discussed on the thread. It was supported by Awickert and opposed by no other users. It's not been edited or proposed for deletion. I've linked only to articles suggested by other users. Andrewjlockley (talk) 14:12, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

On second thought the topic ban proposal is premature. We'll need a second WP:RFC/U for the topic ban to pass; I'll prepare that instead. Your contempt for your fellow editors has become intolerable. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:35, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

In what way? I think I've been pretty restrained over the recent debacle - not 1 editor has addressed my complaint about shameless circumvention of the AfD process. I've also adhered to WP:CIVILITY Andrewjlockley (talk) 14:37, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

3 things. (1) AJL, I believe part of the issue is asking for due process (which would have taken more time and gone to the same result. It's better to make positive suggestions than complain about consensus actions even if they seem unjust to you, and remember that the social and intellectual dynamic determines policy in WP, and not the other way around. (2) Boris, I fixed a few things in Andrew's disambig page but don't see how it was that horrible. What's wrong with it? [A note to Andrew: Atmoz wasn't thrilled with my idea, so I wouldn't say no objections.] (3) Sorry for suggesting the disambig page. Just trying to get rid of a crappy article in a way that was universally accepted and dealt with the "where should it redirect" issue. Awickert (talk) 15:47, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I apologize for giving the impression that the concern is specifically centered around the disambig page. The problems are AJL's ongoing refusal to accept consensus, his use of references that he admits he does not understand and that do not support (or flatly contradict!) the text to which they supposedly refer, his unwillingness or inability to follow Wikipedia's policies on synthesis and original research, among others. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:53, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

OK - I generally don't agree with Andrew, but I've thought that he's gotten better recently in terms of his use of sources. Point me somewhere if I'm wrong; I don't have many climate pages on my watchlist. The consensus thing is still an issue; Atmoz' comments show that there wasn't consensus on making the disambig page, so it seems that Andrew heard what he wanted to hear (i.e., me). Awickert (talk) 16:16, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Well I apologize it the dismbiguation was premature, but I don't regard it as particularly controversial as it was sorting pages which had been suggested as a redirect target already. I've actually not been recently criticised for my use of references (except in 'under construction' pages). I don't think there have been too many consensus-based issues recently either, except when people have been using redirects to avoid an AfD. As I've said before, I'm happy if articles get deleted, but not if it's done sneakily and against policy. Andrewjlockley (talk) 16:31, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

What on Earth is recent to you? Hmmm? I'd call this User_talk:Andrewjlockley_/Long_term_effects_of_global_warming pretty recent. And the whole reason that its part of your namespace is because you still haven't figured what WP:SYN and adequate reading and description of references is. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:52, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

That article always had an underconstruction banner on it. An you went to ask other editors if you were being too harsh on that one, so please bear in mind your very high standards. I am basically behaving myself at the moment. Andrewjlockley (talk) 20:59, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

True. OK. I basically ignored that article as much as I could, so I forgot about it. So there are some-weeks-age recent things. Right now, I would vote for a simple warning on synthesis, OR, RS, Wikilawyering and consensus. I'm sure that others feel more strongly than I do, but I think that the recent "catastrophic climate change" debacle is a bunch of blown-out-of-proportion nonsense that ticked some people off; the only slightly bad thing there was AJL making the disambig I suggested without consensus. Otherwise, it's just a disagreement on a technicality of creating a redirect when the consensus is already known (AJL: consensus trumps policy because the Romans at the forum are the same Romans whether in an "official" setting). So my point is, that if there is a time to accuse AJL of big things, now doesn't seem likely to me unless . Warn, and wait to see if it happens again. If not, great, if yes, deal with it then. Awickert (talk) 21:14, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I accept all of Awickert's criticism of my past history, but I have been quite good recently. However, I am sticking to my guns on the AfD issue. Policy is clear - you cannot circumvent the AfD just by using a redirect. I have not tried to re-open debate on the catastrophic climate change issue since consensus was reached, but my point is wider. Consensus of a small cohort of editors doesn't change policy. Please do not delete without an AfD in future. Andrewjlockley (talk) 23:21, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) All right, looks like everybody lost interest. I'm wrapping this up. I am not "pressing charges" or anything like that. My summary and conclusions are:

1. There was a policy debate about whether it was OK to remove the article and create the redirect. The consensus said yes, via WP:BEFORE, and the main editor of that article (Andrew) said no, saying that it was an improper/imprecise WP:REDIRECT, and asking for due process via WP:AfD.
2. There was a related issue in which Andrew created the redirect page that I suggested without consensus.

My conclusion is that the result of the redirect would have been the same with or without due process. For the purpose of good use of time, Andrew should thicken his skin and suggest positive, consensus-based, improvements to the encyclopedia, instead of fighting over due process. However, I don't believe that this is worth starting any kind of Wiki-legislation against him. He unfortunately does have a negative record for synthesis and keeping to the sources; if I see him again making statements that are contradictory to the citations he uses, I will be of the opinion that something needs to be done. I do think that the redirect page was actually useful, and (pending consensus, because I believe that was the issue) would like to recreate it. I would also like to note how much time is wasted when each of these issues is blown out of proportion, hence my advice against fighting over due process, especially over rarely-viewed articles like this one. Get 'er done and get on with life. Awickert (talk) 20:29, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Seems sensible. I just hope that in future people will use AfDs when they see a need to kill my work. I will continue to take on board other criticisms and generally try and behave. Thanks Awickert for neutrality. Andrewjlockley (talk) 01:01, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

May 2009

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Bio-energy with carbon capture and storage‎‎. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Atmoz (talk) 07:36, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

WP:3RR does not apply to WP:VANDALISM. Andrewjlockley (talk) 07:39, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Well. I think you should try rereading the section in WP:3RR on vandalism, and what may/can be considered vandalism under that rule. Subtle hint: Your interpretation about WP:3RR is wrong. (even if your judgement on vandalism is correct). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 07:43, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I was going to say the same thing. But I'm going to bed now, so you don't have to worry about me reverting for several hours. -Atmoz (talk) 07:44, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

'vandalism – edits which any well-intentioned user would immediately agree constitute vandalism, such as page blanking'. Please note that WP:REDIRECT does NOT apply in this situation. Andrewjlockley (talk) 07:46, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Request

Do you have access to [23]? I'd like to read it, but my institution doesn't have a subscription to G3. -Atmoz (talk) 23:21, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

There you go ;-) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:45, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Ta. -Atmoz (talk) 00:27, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Reputation

You should be aware that you (like everyone else) are judged by the quality of your edits and the wisdom of your talk page contributions. Based on what I've read recently, your reputation with me is indistinguishable from zero. You can blame me if you like - I don't care (if I evaluated your reputation above zero I would care). If you want to be distinguishable from the noise - I hope you do - you'll have to take more care. You might find chapter X interesting William M. Connolley (talk) 22:20, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for stooping to address me. For what misdemeanour in particular do I owe the honour of being chastised by one so great? Andrewjlockley (talk) 22:25, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Geoengineering

You stated on Talk:Global warming, "I'm happy to work on the geoengineering page if you point out areas of concern on the TP. [...]"[24] You can probably redeem some good faith by cleaning up the references to use {{Citations}}; this may show that you care about article quality as to proliferating the topics you care about. It's all up to you, as you probably know it, but this would be a welcome change. ChyranandChloe (talk) 06:12, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, that's overdue. Horrible job though! Andrewjlockley (talk) 09:52, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

A study on how to cover scientific uncertainties/controversies

Hi. I have emailed you to ask whether you would agree to participate in a short survey on how to cover scientific uncertainties/controversies in articles pertaining to global warming and climate change. If interested, please email me Encyclopaedia21 (talk) 14:50, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Sweet tree

An article that you have been involved in editing, Sweet tree, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sweet tree. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Smartse (talk) 11:21, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of David Keith (scientist)

A tag has been placed on David Keith (scientist) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Bonewah (talk) 14:32, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Greenfinger

I have suggested a deletion of this article. Just stumbled on it looking about and think it is not useful. SeeWikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Greenfinger_(3rd_nomination). Polargeo (talk) 20:55, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Miss Bimbo images

Hi, can I ask why you believe you own the rights to these images? Surely, the game is copyrighted, and so any screenshots would be non-free? J Milburn (talk) 17:05, 29 June 2009 (UTC) They're not screenshots, they're exported from the game. These specific ones are public domain, and I checked with the company that makes the game that this is the case. Andrewjlockley (talk) 01:17, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Missbimbo3.jpg

File Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading File:Missbimbo3.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. NW (Talk) 00:43, 14 July 2009 (UTC)