User talk:News Historian

Welcome to Wikipedia[edit]

Welcome!

Hello, News Historian, 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 and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
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 {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! . . dave souza, talk 07:42, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Climatic Research Unit email controversy[edit]

Thanks for contributing, however the addition you made breached WP:NPOV policy by providing a partial report of initial news impressions of the latest batch of old emails, omitting the more balanced responses from the same report. More detailed analyses are now available showing the context of the cherry-picked phrases chosen by the hacker: for example The leaked climate science emails – and what they mean | Environment | guardian.co.uk. There's also an informative discussion at RealClimate: Two-year old turkey which is not a reliable source itself, but links to further information. From discussions on the article talk page so far (see Talk:Climatic Research Unit email controversy#Climategate 2) the general view of editors has been to keep this section short without going into the detailed back and forth required to give due WP:WEIGHT to majority scientific views.

If you think otherwise, please comment on the talk page. As you'll have noticed when editing, the "page is under a 1 revert rule restriction due to the climate change topic community probation. Do not make any edit to the article that reverses the edit of another user in whole or in part more than once in any 24 hour period. Avoid edit warring and seek consensus for any contentious edits at Talk:Climatic Research Unit hacking incident. Editors who fail to adhere to these standards may be blocked from editing for a short period." So, no Wikipedia:Edit warring, seek consensus for changes on the talk page! Thanks, dave souza, talk 07:42, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I have reviewed the WP:NPOV and Wikipedia:Edit warring policies. Thanks. --News Historian (talk) 16:57, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Climatic Research Unit email controversy[edit]

Don't remove my comments William M. Connolley (talk) 20:25, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why not? --News Historian (talk) 20:27, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, I have been reading through some of the information on policies that dave souza pointed me to above. You may not be aware of it so you should review http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks. It says "Derogatory comments about another contributor may be removed by any editor." --News Historian (talk) 20:48, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Read further, particularly the section entitled "Removal of text". This was not on your talk page, nor was it a clear case - just look through all the examples. Mikenorton (talk) 20:56, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It seemed pretty clear to me that he intended to attack the other editor. Still your point is taken. Are there any other rules about this type of thing I should read up on? Thanks. --News Historian (talk) 21:05, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are plenty, but I'm not the best person to ask as I do my best to keep away from such things if I can. This was the first time that I'd read that policy thoroughly, not having needed to before - your interpretation just didn't feel quite right, so I checked. Also I was just about to revert your removal myself but I didn't know the letter of the policy well enough and by the time I'd read it, you had already been reverted. Mikenorton (talk) 21:15, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Single-purpose account[edit]

Please take a moment to read this essay. It is obvious you created this account to edit exclusively on the subject of Climatic Research Unit email controversy for sole purpose of advocacy. Viriditas (talk) 00:20, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've requested your indefinite block[edit]

Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/William M. Conway. Viriditas (talk) 00:39, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, you gave me 19 minutes to start editing some other topics before you asked that I be blocked from editing. What was I supposed to do in 19 minutes? And for the record I have been editing other topics by reverting obvious pranks and such. That doesn't count? --News Historian (talk) 01:38, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you aren't blocked by an administrator due to the evidence presented at the SPI, I will ask for your block at ANI. Viriditas (talk) 03:17, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you doing this? --News Historian (talk) 03:55, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You should read Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SPI/Guidance for what to do next. I hope this is a ~~false~~ mistaken accusation. Don't panic, false sock-puppet accusations are pretty common. And welcome to the Wiki Climate Wars! Good luck, Pete Tillman (talk) 06:34, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And you, Tillman, should read the SPI linked above. There's nothing "false" about it. Viriditas (talk) 06:47, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I've said elsewhere: PT's biases are obvious William M. Connolley (talk) 10:27, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My god you people are paranoid. Do you treat every new user like this? I am mimicking some other user because I have "News" in my account name? Do you have any idea how many user names must have "News" in their name? I had to try five or six options to find one that was not in use already. I wanted News in my name because I read a lot of "news". I came here because I have used Wikipedia in the past and I thought it might be fun to help chronicle the "news" I was reading, hence "historian". It's not that mysterious.

That sockpuppet thingy seems to be pretty much done so there doesn't seem to be any point doing anything over there. I guess I am just waiting for them to block me from the looks of it. I had no idea coming here was going to be like this. It's like stepping into a hornet's nest. I plan to just mind my own business at this point and maybe go do something other than the CRU emails. That place seems way too unfriendly. --News Historian (talk) 14:14, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you landed on one of the most contentious pages at Wikipedia. And Viriditas's zeal can be excessive. I appreciate your contributions there, but you may want to get your feet wet in a less-contentious area. Best wishes, Pete Tillman (talk) 19:09, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it seems so. --News Historian (talk) 21:47, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism fighting[edit]

If you are doing a vandalism fighting round please consider placing warnings on the talk pages of the vandalising editors. That way other editors can easier follow the history of their edits and block if the behaviour is persistent. Cheers. --Saddhiyama (talk) 14:27, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks for the pointer. --News Historian (talk) 14:31, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, WP:Twinkle does a pretty nice job of semi-automating the warning process... makes it quite a bit less tedious. --DGaw (talk)

Yes, I have been reading up on it. I enabled it in my gadgets but it doesn't seem to be working for me for some reason. I just need to find some time to debug it. --News Historian (talk) 18:58, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]