User:NewsAndEventsGuy/sandbox

more

• User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
• Editor interaction utility
• 3rr report tool
• Reflist-talk
• Example of setting up archiving
• {{noindex}} for userspace that should not be indexed to the web
• {{subst:alert|cc}} ~~~~ but note that old system notifications are valid thru 5-3-15
• Force loading of the DS alert warning box, to aide research into alerts issued in prior 12 months
• Talk:IPCC Fifth Assessment Report/citation
• Manually look up user's DS Alert log..... talk page, version history, in tag field add discretionary sanctions alert
• <span style="color:red">Red text</span>
• Wikipedia:Mass_message_senders
• example video linking [[File:A Year In The Life Of Earth's CO2 11719-1920-MASTER.webm|thumb|center|600px|A Year In The Life Of Earth's CO2 Jan. 1, 2006 - Dec. 31, 2006]]
• To leave an invisible comment, <!--Text goes here-->
• deleting user subpages
• Whatsup
  
• Some favorite essays

• The_unblockables
• a bunch more

*For grey box with text, the text goes here

• User_talk:Adjwilley#Possible_sock

please suggest some draft text, with [[WP:CITE|wikipedia style citations]] to what [[WP:RS|wikipedia defines as reliable sources]]. @@ without suggesting any specific improvements amounts to a general discussion and this is not a forum for general topic discussion

For speedy deletion of linkfarm talk pages {{db-g5|Arthur Rubin/IP list}}

TODO: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Quiddity&diff=640128313&oldid=640119055

WP:RFO

For new editors... although the poll sort of looks like a vote that is not what it is. Wikipedia treats polls such as these as a way of organizing discussion of the principles and the strength of the reasons underlying editors' viewpoints. It is not a majority rule voting process. As it says in WP:Consensus "...consensus is determined by the quality of arguments (not by a simple counted majority), polls should be regarded as structured discussions rather than voting. Responses indicating individual explanations of positions using Wikipedia policies and guidelines are given the highest weight."

Do not edit war

Once you have been reverted, you are expected to discuss the matter at the article talk page. One of the reverting editors has already started a thread for that purpose. Please click this link and discuss the improvements you think need to be made, instead of repeatedly editing the article, because that looks a lot like edit warring, which can lead to sanctions.

Great, now learn how to use a talk page

Thanks for replying at article talk. Next, please learn how to discuss at those talk (or this) talk page. Three things

• Sign your posts by typing 4 tildes at the end. Like this ~~~~
• Learn to indent to show who you are replying to, using colons Like this : or :::: etc
• Read the talk page guidelines

Before any more editing, please review about [[WP:BRD|what to do when you are reverted]]. The next step is to DISCUSS at the article talk page, where we have [[WP:TPG|certain guidelines to follow]]. If you are unhappy with the discussion, don't keep restoring the reverted text or variations of it. Instead, rely on [[WP:DR|dispute resolution]] ~~~~

"The magnitude of climate change and the severity of its impacts will depend on the actions that human societies take to respond to these risks." pg 2 America's Climate Choices: Advancing the Science of Climate Change (Report in Brief) Matson, et al US National Research Council 2010 http://dels.nas.edu/resources/static-assets/materials-based-on-reports/reports-in-brief/Science-Report-Brief-final.pdf

Before Global warming lead revamp reconfirm scope of article

section Moved to sandbox3

table formatting

Header text	Header text	Header text
R1C1	R1C2	R1C3
	R2C2	R2C3
R3C1	R3C2	R3C3

Originally posted at BLPN, then I learned about a very similar discussion at the FRINGE noticeboard. Parking here while I mull things over.

I am struggling to reconcile some ANI closing instructions with our BLP policy. This will be the first I've raised my confusion to the closing admin, but I thought I'd raise the question here for others interested in BLP issues.

Back in Jan 2014 TParis (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) concluded an ANI with the following instructions

"Use what the sources say. If the majority of sources call a subject a "skeptic" then they are a skeptic. If the sources calls them a "climate change denier" then call them that. We use what the majority of sources use. Single partisan sources that are used in opposition to the majority of sources will be considered POV pushing and sanctioned under WP:ARBCC. Mass changes of any material without discussion is disruptive.--v/r"

I was not involved in that action. However, these closing instruction were recently cited in context of discussion at Talk:Anthony Watts (blogger), where I am involved.

The article subject, Anthony Watts, is a public figure, who runs what he calls the world's most-viewed blog on climate change (Watts up with that). Like most public figures, there is a range of commentary in the sources. From my own research, it appears that only a handful of sources have been discussed so far. Before I spend a lot more time looking into it, I'm hoping to get some guidance as to how the results could be used.

The closing instructions from TParis appear to close the door on minority voices found in otherwise respectable RSs. As I read BLP policy, that isn't quite how we handle public figures. The key section seems to be

"Public figures

"In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article – even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out.

• "Example: "John Doe had a messy divorce from Jane Doe." Is this important to the article, and was it published by third-party reliable sources? If not, leave it out, or stick to the facts: "John Doe and Jane Doe were divorced."
• "Example: A politician is alleged to have had an affair. He or she denies it, but multiple major newspapers publish the allegations, and there is a public scandal. The allegation belongs in the biography, citing those sources. However, it should only state that the politician was alleged to have had the affair, not that he or she actually did. If the subject has denied such allegations, that should also be reported."

As I read the policy, the ANI's closing instructions seem to shut the door on RSs holding a minority view of the public figure. In the present instance, the policy seems to require reporting when most quality sources say Jane Doe is a "climate skeptic" while adding that some quality sources allege Jane Doe is a "climate denier". TParis' closing instructions appear to say that doing so will incur the wrath of AE under WP:ARBCC.

TParis (talk · contribs), did I understand and reiterate your closing instructions correctly? Can you help me reconcile this perceived conflict between those instructions and the policy?

And what do you other members of this board think about it all? Can we make mention when a minority of quality sources allege Jane Doe is a climate denier? Or should we get sanctioned for doing so? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:41, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Reserved for closing admin TParis rats, it looks like this excellent admin has retiredNewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:48, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

General Discussion

• Comments anyone? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:41, 7 April 2015 (UTC)