User talk:Cohler

Topic ban
This is to notify you that per here you are topic banned from editing about Jonathan Cohler. You may request the lifting of this ban in a year. Best Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 11:37, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Question, does this topic ban also ban me from asking questions on the talk page or simply from making edits on the article page? --TheClarinetGuy talk 14:29, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes from the talk page aswell. Bans you from any discussion on the topic in question anywhere on WP. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 00:30, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you. --TheClarinetGuy talk 00:31, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Does this ban me from editing a page about a student orchestra that I played in 40 years ago and with which I have never had any professional connection whatsoever? --TheClarinetGuy talk 20:15, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes it does. You need to work on stuff for which you have no connection. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 02:44, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
 * You failed to mention that your name appears in that article. I suggest that you read and study WP:TBAN. Your editing restriction is stringent. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  20:55, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I did read WP:TBAN. It doesn't address this. By your logic, the fact that I attended Harvard University, or Lexington High School, or some Elementary school 50 years ago, or a restaurant I ate at, that would preclude me from talking about it? That doesn't make any sense, and it certainly doesn't say anything about that on WP:TBAN. The fact that I am listed somewhere as a notable alumnus has nothing to do with editing other parts the article. Doc James said places I work and people I work with. Not every place I have ever been in my life. The fact that my name is mentioned in a list, doesn't mean the article is about me. I would appreciate opinion on this. --TheClarinetGuy talk 21:01, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Notice of Reliable Sources Noticeboard discussion
There is currently a discussion at Reliable sources/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 18:49, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks, yes, I responded there already. --TheClarinetGuy talk 18:55, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 05:06, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Surprised no one has notified you of the discretionary sanctions. The notification looks formal and imposing, but unfortunately it is not permitted to alter or personalize it in any way. It's a standard thing everyone editing in this topic has to be made aware of. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 05:07, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

talk page chaos
Please for godsakes follow proper threading and do not interpose your chaos-producing comments in the middle of prior back-and-forth commentary. I recently had to fix that with this edit. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:17, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads-up on this. I was not aware of that guideline, but will be happy to follow it now that I know about it! --TheClarinetGuy talk 19:14, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
 * If you didn't know about our threading conventions, perhaps you also don't know about the WP:Talk page guidelines. Of particular note, article talk is only to be used to discuss proposed RS-based improvements and not for general discussion (known as WP:FORUM).....  new comments usually go at the bottom unless they're threaded to specific remarks, and if you introduce a new subtopic it helps to give it a new sub heading.   Not saying you're making trouble in any of those respects, just pointing them out FYI.  But do read thru the WP:TPG for anything else that may be helpful.  NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:31, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Yes, I was aware of the other guidelines, but I will definitely reread WP:TPG. Those long threads can get hard to read and understand sometimes! --TheClarinetGuy talk 00:42, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of National Repertory Orchestra
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article National Repertory Orchestra you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Iadmc -- Iadmc (talk) 21:02, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅ passed with some suggestions appended — Iadmc  ♫ talk  22:17, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you! --TheClarinetGuy talk 22:28, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Congrats NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:34, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of National Repertory Orchestra
The article National Repertory Orchestra you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:National Repertory Orchestra for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Iadmc -- Iadmc (talk) 23:21, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

sorting FYI
I haven't read you new contribution to Talk GW yet, just wanted to drop a note saying that as a matter of keeping the conversation intelligible I simply moved your text verbatim to a subsection of the existing thread. That way, when the thread gets archived the whole thing will remain intact and people can follow along. Pretty much everyone who has contributed to the thread has been there as long as I have, which is a number of years. I refer to the archives all the time, so I thought this would help others now, or future readers later. I'll read it and offer comments, if any, soon. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:39, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Yeah I wasn't sure the best way to post it. --TheClarinetGuy talk 00:46, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Edit warring and WP:BRD at Satellite temperature measurements
There is a Wikipedia convention of "BOLD, revert, discuss" in which editors are encouraged to edit boldly (which you did), other editors may revert material they do not regard as improvements (which I did), and then the two editors should discuss the matter on the talk page. Unfortunately you skipped the third step. WP:BRD specifically advises "Don't restore your changes or engage in back-and-forth reverts, because that will probably be viewed as edit-warring."

So, let's go back to the article following the "R" part of the sequence and discuss on the article's talk page. That would be a more constructive approach than further reverts, which could end up with one or both of us making a visit to WP:ANEW. Speaking of which, the notification below is required. Please be assured this is in no way an accusation; it is only meant to ensure that you are aware of the policy. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 16:07, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Your recent editing history shows that you could become engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 16:07, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Indeed it is you who made wholesale reversion of multiple specific, sourced and cited changes. If you have an issue with a particular edit, please give your specific edits or talk page comments with reasons. Do not make wholesale changes to multiple carefully and properly cited edits all at once, as this is definitely an indication that you may be engaging in edit warring when you make a wholesale reversion to multiple totally separate and independent edits, each of which is carefully sourced and explained, with no explanation whatsoever. --TheClarinetGuy talk 16:16, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Good faith
We have a rule about assuming good faith; You're starting to make personal statements at article talk, for example, admonishing me to read everything you say before I comment (as if I haven't already spent a huge amount of time doing exactly that). Our rules also say that the assumption of good faith can be defeated by evidence of bad faith. Determined failure to answer simple questions constitutes such evidence. See WP:DISRUPTSIGNS. I'm bending over backwards to invite you to tell us at Talk:Global warming the specific text of whatever change you're agitating for. I've asked multiple times. The nice people at the arbitration committee have already issued a ruling on the contentious area of climate change. The idea is not to punish but to PREVENT PROBLEMS, such as interminable discussion and foruming. You are already on notice about this decision but its my guess you may not have read it. Apologies if that impression is incorrect. Either way it would be good in my opinion to re-review WP:ARBCC. If I persuade an admin that you're in violation of these provisions, you could be blocked for a few days as a means of PREVENTING nonstop disruptive forumming.

Instead, please just write up your desired article edit. Post the draft text with sources to talk or Hell, just boldly edit the article. If you can't or won't do this, then the Talk:Global warming thread is disruptive.

Your choice. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:28, 4 February 2017 (UTC)


 * What "simple questions" have I failed to answer? --TheClarinetGuy talk 19:48, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I asked you to explain your desired article edit; after days of discussion you finally did earlier today by editing the article and I thanked you at article talk.   So my answer in re this subsequent rhetorical question is to see WP:DROPSTICK.   I would have followed that advice and simply not answered, except at other times in our interaction you have thanked me for pointing out some of our basic operating procedures, so I'm pointing that essay out in the same spirit. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:59, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the WP:DROPSTICK reference. I have never seen that before. Interesting read. And I appreciate your thanks at the article. But please understand, this is a complicated article with complicated information and sources, and my initial proposal was a solicitation to get some help in improving the article. Not a declaration that I had the exact specific edit fine tuned in my head already. I did make very specific recommendations from the start, however, about possible data sources, possible graphs, and why I felt and feel that the article needs the information to be more balanced. As it currently stands, the article is very unbalanced (IMO), with the vast majority of its references coming from surface data, IPCC data, and NASA GISS data. As I have pointed out at the article, there are many other reliable sources of information from non-surface records, non-IPCC, and non-NASA GISS outlets and I think in order to obtain WP:BALANCE, more of those, in general, are required. I will work to add more as I can. --TheClarinetGuy talk 20:12, 5 February 2017 (UTC)