Archives

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

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

Nigel, thanks for welcoming me, and yes, please do give me advice on posting and such. I know absolutely nothing about Wikipedia etiquette and suspect I need to start learning quickly. Also, I'm happy to provide comments on any energy related pages that you think might need it.Bksovacool (talk) 02:01, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, a lack of discussion to prevent consensus (and its more than just myself) is not a valid form of debate. Its been weeks, there is no magic "consensus" to keep or delete, but if the editors will not engage I will remove it. Or I can take it to DRN, but silence on their part doesn't help. There is nothing intrinsic for its inclusion, its just one of many pictures and the issues surrounding it have not been addressed. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:56, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Per the note at the top of this page, this is the wrong place to discuss this. Please use the relevant article talk page. --Nigelj (talk) 18:06, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No one replied there about the content dispute in weeks. I am now discussing your actions, which is proper here and not on the talk page. Will you answer or not? Your little notice is one thing, but I this is between you and me, I've been advised that such discussions are not for talk pages and are best discussed on your talk page. Your revert and lack of action on it is a problem which dispute resolution standards are typically followed. Since this concerns your behavior, I prefer it be here, unless you are particularly offended by it. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:35, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have no issue with you personally. If you have an issue with me personally, I suggest you look at WP:AGF first. I reverted your edit on one particular page because you have not received any consensus to make that edit on the talk page of that article. If you don't want to discuss your edit on the talk page of the relevant article that is not my problem. This is not "between you and me" at all, and I am sorry that you wanted to say that. --Nigelj (talk) 21:39, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And you continue to misinterpret. A lack of consensus building is not an indication of consensus and if there is no given reason for an image to remain then a contested image is best removed under the circumstances. It is not a problem with you at all, but instead how you try to be uninvolved when you are involved. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 21:59, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Nigelj. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Flyer22 (talk) 05:04, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for archiving Talk:Global warming conspiracy theory NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:03, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you are interested in taking a stab at these matters? Whether you are or aren't, I'm pretty certain that the IP in question is the same person that some of us have encountered regarding urination matters, such as discussions about having a urination image in the Human penis article. Flyer22 (talk) 19:53, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Done ;-) Nigelj (talk) 22:08, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what to do about this editor; see, for example, his contributions at this time. And he finally responded after being silent during initial interactions. But one thing is for sure: I will have my work cut out for me more than I already do if he continues editing Wikipedia sexual topics. That type of editing is exactly why so many Wikipedia sexual topics are in bad or mediocre shape. I understand that he is a newbie and that I should not bite the newbies, but goodness. If I were as enthusiastic about Wikipedia as I used to be, I'd probably try to WP:Mentor him instead of simply pointing him to guidelines and policies. But WP:Mentoring takes so much work, and, as you know, I'm barely enthusiastic about this site anymore at all. Flyer22 (talk) 04:51, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll keep an eye out with you. No, we don't have any obligation to mentor every newcomer. Reverting and patiently pointing out relevant policies and guidelines is as good as we can do most of the time. --Nigelj (talk) 06:57, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. And, yeah, I know. It's just that, like I've discussed with you before, we do need those who will be able to fill in for us when we leave; that's why one of the concerns with regard to Wikipedia is replenishing our ranks. Flyer22 (talk) 07:02, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jeez, Nigel, I did not launch an edit war. (BRD is a great idea, but pertinent edit summaries usually work.) The first edit summary was based on "non-RS" and I pointed out that Moore is a Hoover Institute Fellow. As soon as another editor reverted I opened the discussion. Also, you are claiming that Liberty Fund is a right wing think tank, but Lawrence Summers & Joseph Stiglitz are two of the CEE authors (among many). I don't think they are part of the right wing.-- – S. Rich (talk) 18:40, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) My view, Srich32977 (talk · contribs), is that you did. (A) You added stuff; (B) I reverted; (C) You reverted my revert with no discussion. Edit summaries you might use in Step C do not excuse you from first seeking consensus on talk pages before you take step C. Moreover, there is a lower tolerance in the climate articles than usual due to the ruling by the Arbs in WP:ARBCC. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:04, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your thoughts on this, whether you comment there or here on your talk page? Flyer22 (talk) 06:08, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]