Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6

This page has archives. Sections older than 120 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

You'll want kick yourself for this one, I'm sure. You referred to weather announcers "procrastinating" on subjects they know nothing about, when I think you meant "pontificating". If it's any consolation, my phone wants to spell the word "sootheiabuing"! Tasty monster (=TS ) 23:53, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

D'oh! That'll teach me to make comments just before bed! Thanks. It's nice to know someone reads all this drivel. P.S. That phone of yours, it'll be more famous than you one day. --Nigelj (talk) 14:59, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(I had already composed a response to your argument and when I tried to save, you had removed it. So here it is, for what it's worth :))

But the reality is public perception does not match the scientific consensus, and the more we try to avoid documenting that plain fact, the more we look like we (Wikipedia editors) have an agenda in this fight, which ironically feeds their conspiracy theories. It's like Climategate -- those scientists' attempts to suppress dissenting papers (even if they were crap) and withhold data from skeptics caused a controversy that was much more widespread and damaging than if those papers had been published and the data released. Climategate gave the conspiracy theorists a smoking gun, and even if it was just a cap gun, they still used it to create a furor, and that furor sways public opinion further against the science. The same happens here. When we try too hard to discredit skeptics or suppress well-reported public information, it gives us the appearance of bias that is much more damaging than if we'd just dispassionately documented what's out there and avoid the urge to discredit and disprove every single point. That's the irony here -- by working so hard to document the scientific truth at the expense of all else, and by doing it in a way that features a very prominent climate scientist who is caustic to all opposition, you give skeptics in the media the ammunition they need to discredit Wikipedia as a source and thereby cause more people to distrust the science. That's what I meant by the sentence you referenced. ATren (talk) 14:04, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

		The Special Barnstar
		I know you have been doing good work on WP for a long time, so here is a barnstar for you! Johnfos (talk) 01:35, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

<blush> Thanks very much </blush> --Nigelj (talk) 13:09, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Germany and some of Scandinavia use meters per second for wind speeds? I know I've seen it somewhere in our travels. And silly as it may be, I find the rough conversions you deleted useful. I could just revert your deletion, but I find that a little abrupt for an experienced user that I don't know.

BTW, given your sailing experiences, you may be interested in User:Jameslwoodward/Travels which was largely under sail and our latest project. . . Jim - Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 22:50, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jim. I don't know about the countries you mention - I've not done any sailing up that way. My main point was that there are many conversions that people have to do in the world, and this one was getting WP:UNDUE detail. They're all easily seen from the conversion table that has recently appeared there anyway. For example, I'm sure in the Caribbean, everyone on the SSB radio nets gave windspeeds in mph not knots, which is about 15% different. If we start explaining how to do the maths for each combination, we'll never finish! UK sailors in the Americas, Americans in the Med, Caribbeans in Scandinavia, Hawaiians in China... Thanks for the links, I'll have a look :-) --Nigelj (talk) 09:07, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK -- I'm not jumping up and down about it -- I just find easy round number conversions interesting and helpful.. . Jim - Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 14:18, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At one point in a recent comment you refer to "pov vandalism" or something similar. Would you edit that comment to remove the apparent inference of bad faith? Loose use of the word "vandalism" should be strenuously avoided in the context of Wikipedia, as I'm sure you appreciate. Tasty monster (=TS ) 13:51, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Done. --Nigelj (talk) 18:10, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Misrepresentation of the facts" - what facts? "Scientists" - what scientists? "Public" - what public? "Most of", "recently" and, best of all, "opinion" - can you come up with anything less factual than that? If you want to have facts, bring them - with references. But please don't go telling me I'm misrepresenting non-existent "facts" - all you got so far are allegiations. Even if a maior part of the publicly represented science community seems to be in agreement about the current development of global climate. Best regards, --G-41614 (talk) 08:52, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please read through Scientific opinion on climate change, the article referenced in the relevant sentence at Low-carbon economy. You will find many references there. Then there is the parent article, Global warming. --Nigelj (talk) 09:37, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

About to re-read them. So far SoCC still reads like OR with the occasional referenced point. A suggestion of my own would be the Hartwell Paper. Agreeing or not, makes for interesting reading. Especially regarding the public opinion. I still maintain that the sentence in question does not meet the standards of this place, as low as they might seem on occasion. --G-41614 (talk) 11:44, 21 May 2010 (UTC) I see now why you felt the need to say I was "misrepresenting" "facts". It could've been a better job, but still, as of now it's nothing but hot air. Except maybe the scientists with the reference to SoCC. But still - "most of scientists"? Hm.[reply]

Talk:List_of_web_browsers#.22Notable_browsers.22_again could you read first and discuss before revert and "mark as spam"? mabdul 14:38, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote:

Climate change is an unusual phenomenon. It is the first time that scientific work has uncovered and described an issue that is so important to our very survival and that is going to drive political, economic and social change worldwide for the indefinite future.

I would take minor issue with this. Think of the nuclear arms race of the Cold War era. 69.228.170.24 (talk) 07:30, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I gave the example of space exploration, and your example is similar: Sometimes scientific research shows that something is possible, then the political process may decide (for whatever reasons), 'OK, let's do it'. In the case of global warming, science has shown that something bad is inevitable unless we do something to avert it. This is not a time for the political processes of the world to say, 'Nah, let's not bother, shall we?'. If you want an analogy, how about if astronomers found a large asteroid heading for the earth, to hit it in 30 - 50 years time. Could anyone say, 'Let's just leave it - I'll be dead by that time, and I want to make a lot more money for me before I die, not waste it on people who aren't even born yet"? --Nigelj (talk) 10:13, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nigel, I wonder whether you would be willing to comment on the dispute summarized at Talk:Sailing_faster_than_the_wind#PB dispute.--Gautier lebon (talk) 10:02, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again. OK. I've been and added two pennies-worth. --Nigelj (talk) 16:42, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[1] looks problematic. Could you make sure your edit did what you wanted it to do? Hipocrite (talk) 15:20, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have largely undone two of your (Nigelj) reverts. Do not touch the comments of any other user in that AfD please, as so far, whether by accident or by intent, you have really screwed it up. If you have responses to make to others, do nothing but that and be mindful of what to do if an edit conflict message pops up. Tarc (talk) 15:36, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am very sorry about those two inadvertent deletions of other people's comments. Of course neither were intentional. The pace of edit conflicts on that page is so large that I think it is no longer worth trying to contribute to it. I was no aware that after the first E/C, you get no warning about a second one when using the E/C page to complete the edit, no matter how quick you are. Normally I don not use that page as it carries a copy of the whole page and rarely works, but as this had no section headings, I felt it was as likely as anything else to work. It clearly doesn't. As long as my !vote is there, I'm not prepared to risk RfE or any of the other nasty tricks that get played on you when you engage with these people, so I'm outa there. --Nigelj (talk) 15:46, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This Arbitration case is now moving into the Workshop phase. Please read Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration#Workshop to understand the process. Editors should avoid adding to their evidence sections outside of slight tweaks to aid in understanding; large-scale additions should not be made. Many proposals have already been made and there has already been extensive discussion on them, so please keep the Arbitrators' procedures in mind, namely to keep "workshop proposals as concise as reasonably possible." Workshop proposals should be relevant and based on already provided evidence; evidence masquerading as proposals will likely be ignored. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 20:38, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In reference to your comments on backslash: Indeed on MSDOS 1.0 is was VERY common to not put a space between the commands and the slash-led arguments, and I suspect it was typed this way more often than with a space. This is a good example because there really isn't any other way to be compatible, it is impossible to call a program called "dir/w" unless you type "dir\w". If spaces had been needed before the slash then the problems would have been equivalent to the Unix problem with files starting with a dash and could have been solved by adding a "no more swiches" switch, ie to remove a file called "-f" on Unix you type "rm -- -f" where "--" is the "no more switches" switch.Spitzak (talk) 20:08, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. It's good to clear it up. --Nigelj (talk) 20:12, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The editors pushing their POV on the climate change articles are following a "script", metaphorically speaking, written by the Heartland Institute and its supporters, shovarious commentstors have observed to be engaged in what they see as a propaganda war against AGW proponents and the science supporting it. Excerpts from the proceedings for the Fourth International Conference on Climate Change held in May by the Institute, is a virtual mirror of the arguments we are seeing on Wikipedia. Might be a good idea to take a cliser look and see what's really going on here. These people should not be anywhere near an encyclopedia. Viriditas (talk) 21:58, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]