User talk:Dikstr

Solar Cycles and Citations
Thank you for working on Solar variation and inserting updated references. When you make edits, please use tags and full citations; look at the pre-existing citations for examples, and spend some time reading Wikipedia to see how proper citations are used; if you look at the Global Warming section, you'll see that it flows better with the proper footnotes instead of the names inserted in the middle; the footnotes also provide additional important information about the reference.

On the talk page, I was also putting forward an idea of a re-structuring of the section: as it stands, I feel like it is too much of a peanut gallery of statements of scientists. I was hoping that it could go into each of the 3 major reasons (basic blackbody, UV, and cosmic rays/cloud nucleation) in a way that shows the whys. On that note, I read the JGR GRL paper you linked, and I'm skeptical right now, but my skepticism is based on the fact that I've never seen the empirical relationships that they cite; do you have those papers?

We can continue this conversation here or (maybe better) on the talk page, but thanks for your additions, and I'd like to hear any information that you have on the solar cycles; feel free to copy/paste what I say onto the talk page to keep it in context.

Thanks.

Awickert (talk) 01:29, 10 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Glad to contribute to the solar variation article. My motivation is to make sure a balanced view on these and related topics are presented. Which specific articles are you interestted in? --Dikstr (talk) 21:33, 10 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for adding full citations. If you want to make it easier, you can just add the DOI, and I or you can use an automated citation bot to fill in the rest. Also, I just learned that in your "preferences-->gadgets", you can turn on a citation template automatic generator; I always used to type the template by hand, but no longer.
 * I might be making some change to the structure of the section (as per the talk page) and add some info.
 * As for me, I mostly work on geology and geophysics, though I've been putting out NPOV fires in climate recently. This is, I think, the first time I've tried to do something more than damage control with climate.
 * Awickert (talk) 01:14, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your help in editing contributions and the tips on entering citations especially - doing them manually is a bit tedious. What does NPOV stand for?
 * Thanks for your help in editing contributions and the tips on entering citations especially - doing them manually is a bit tedious. What does NPOV stand for?


 * Neutral point of view, a core policy. Global warming articles tend to attract questionable or poorly sourced edits. - Eldereft (cont.) 19:07, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Right - and I forgot to add, the way to cite things by hand and then use the citation bot is to type or  . I usually just do that and run User:Citation bot for the rest. The full listing for full reference citing is at Citation templates. Awickert (talk) 00:32, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Slow revert war at Solar variation
In general, if you find yourself being reverted by multiple editors, it's a good idea to explain your position on the talk page so that the issues can be resolved. As for this edit summary, let me assure you that I am not a part of any "subset" of editors with the others who have reverted you (if you don't believe me check the global warming talk page archives or this), it's just that your sources don't currently meet the bar for inclusion IMO. Also, "automatically mark edits as minor" is an option you can turn off in your settings. Oren0 (talk) 04:22, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

To everyone involved in editing this section:
 * Glad to hear that you are not a member of that group Oren0. In any case, as it stands, Foukal's literature survey of 2006 is affected by both his historical bias re solar variability and the fact that it doesn't include important new work that's occurred since the research he reviewed. The 'cut and paste' comment results from my 'newbie Wikipedic ignorance' - I used it to 'revert' the paragraph I had constructed and another editor had removed. As far as the quality of the references, I must ask you to be more specific. Most of the references are refereed journals. Perhaps the verbiage of the paragraph in question could be improved, but it shouldn't be eliminated. I'm always prepared to respond to objective criticism and recommendations for improving my input but I expect it to be a straightforward process with specific critique. Otherwise it has the appearance of oblique excuses to keep information out of the section that conflicts with someone's politically correct view regarding solar forcing of climate. I have assumed, and hope I'm right, that Wikipedia is supposed to be a source of useful information with a balanced view - not a politically correct propaganda propagator.--Dikstr (talk) 18:05, 19 February 2009 (UTC)--Dikstr (talk) 18:09, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Let me explain what I mean by WP:WEIGHT in regards to these references. Lots of articles are published in scientific journals.  What makes these important enough to cover in what must be a relatively brief summary of the topic?  Can you demonstrate, for example, that news organizations have deemed this article to be important by reporting on it?  Has this article been cited by many others?  These types of considerations must be used when determining whether an article should be mentioned.  Without applying these sorts of metrics, we're bound to have an edit war any time one editor decides that one paper should be mentioned in an article.  We cannot decide which papers are important, only reliable sources can.  If you can demonstrate that this article has received significant press coverage, cites, etc. then its inclusion will be better received. Oren0 (talk) 03:47, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * OK - that makes sense. Thanks for the explanation. I'll work on that aspect.--Dikstr (talk) 08:49, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

A study on how to cover scientific uncertainties/controversies
Hi. I would like to ask whether you would agree to participate in a short survey on how to cover scientific uncertainties/controversies in articles pertaining to global warming and climate change (survey described here). If interested, please get in touch via my talkpage or email me Encyclopaedia21 (talk) 16:30, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Filled out your form but couldn't send it to the e_mail site.


 * Hi. Thank you very much for coming back to me. Do you want to try sending the form again at encyclopaedia@educ.gla.ac.uk. I just checked my mail settings and it is working fine Encyclopaedia21 (talk) 10:31, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Solar forcing
I think you have some good points on solar forcing in the GW article. But -- in a somewhat controversial article like this one it would be best to introduce new ideas piece by piece instead of by sweeping changes. Also be aware that using junk sources like NIPCC tends to put people off; try to use the best quality source material you can (no offense intended, you presumably don't know it's not a serious scientific doucment). Regards - Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:03, 8 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Its all about balance and the original version of this section had NONE! Although the NIPCC was assembled by dedicated climate change sleptics it references a lot of good solid (and refereed) work. You have to sort the wheat from the chaff (as any harvester knows!).Dikstr (talk) 07:21, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Your comment missed my point
I find myself insulted by this. Clearly you didn't read my continued attempts to contact the user, to no avail. The issue was the continued edit-war style reposting of a list of issues with the topic, with no direct proposal of how to improve the article. I wanted the user to post a single actionable item, but he/she didn't. The user had already violated 3RR, but I continued to warn instead of reporting until roughly 10 reverts, 3 times as many as would be required had I simply wanted to request a block. I am happy to entertain discussion, but I leave postings of theses to Martin Luther.

Please take up issues with my editing with me in the future, instead of leaving remarks elsewhere for me to find. Awickert (talk) 06:14, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

You deserved the criticism. The old boy network approach to editing these areas of the Wikipedia is a disservice to it as an information source. There needs to be a balance of views on all topics, especially those that are controversial. The young minds reading Wikipedia to learn about various subjects need to know that questioning the status quo or 'consensus view' is an important part of finding new insight into our knowledge of any subject Dikstr (talk) 16:04, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Did you read what he was adding? It was a blanket list of criticisms without actionable items, and cross the line into rant a few times. I would happily deal with actionable items.
 * Also, your comment crossed the line from content to personal attack. I'm ignoring this, though I find it interesting that you say I deserved it. Feel free to trout-slap me if I do something pro-AGW that does not include suggesting the removal of the source of a well-beyond 3RR rant list from the talk page.
 * What I am saying is that (a) those criticisms were inappropriately framed and needed to be reframed in order to be debated upon; (b) I gave the editor plenty of time to do so, waiting until well past 3RR; and (c) your comment was about me, not the edits, which is unacceptable here. Awickert (talk) 16:18, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry charges
I am willing to politely discuss. However, you make comments like that noted above and accuse me of having sockpuppets when it is really an accidentally-unsigned edit by The Squicks. (Feel free to request a checkuser, by the way.) I typically ignore one personal attack; after the sockpuppetry allegation I'm currently debating whether it's worth it to take this up on Wikiquette or some appropriate board. Whether I do or not, stop harassing me. Awickert (talk) 20:01, 29 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I didn't accuse you of making the statement, just noted that it was a convenient (unsigned) interrogative to your subsequent (signed) commentary. Dikstr (talk) 20:26, 29 June 2009 (UTC)


 * OK, thanks for explaining, I noticed that too when replying. I'd just appreciate a little more checking the edit history and "assume good faith"-style wording to create less drama - thanks. Awickert (talk) 22:16, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Satellite temperature measurements
I would welcome your input to the discussion related to the new public domain image of RSS and UAH global temperature anomaly data here: Satellite Temperature Measurements -- Update the Graphic. Thank you. SunSw0rd (talk) 19:30, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

August 2009
Please do not attack other editors. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. ''Please withdraw your personal attacks here. I likewise think that there is an issue with the plots, but it is completely possible to state your rationale without attacking every editor who disagrees with you. Your continuation of this behavior is becoming a problem.'' Awickert (talk) 07:32, 7 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I made no 'attacks' on other editors. You similarly misconstrued my comments about some of your edits recently (see Sockpuppetry charges above). Discussion of differences in knowledge, interpretation or judgment is what the discourse in Wikipedia is all about. Anyone too thin-skinned for the give-and-take is in the wrong venue.Dikstr (talk) 00:32, 8 August 2009 (UTC)


 * As in this, "A convenient interrogative (was this a sock puppet post?)"? Hardly misconstrued. You'll be hearing from me. Awickert (talk) 00:59, 8 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I have reported your behavior at Wikiquette. You may feel free to comment there. Awickert (talk) 01:41, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Solar Variations and Effect on possible climate change
I do not agree with the conclusion that, sun cycles have a limited effect on the earth's climate. My limited view is based on reading the following articles: Variations in solar luminocity and their effect on the Earths Climate, Nature Sep 2006 and How anthropogenic influences alter global and regional surface temperatures from 1889 to 2006, Geophysical Research Letters, Vol 35, L18701. As both articles state, only the sun's UV or magnetized plasma, could be a cause, but, is considered too complex to evaluate meaningfully at the moment (obviously 2006). Reading these articles I can only conclude that the IPCC is a device to raise taxes (on CO2 emissions). I wonder how long we will breathe O2 for free? dpmeister@swissonline.ch —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.73.60.107 (talk) 23:07, 22 August 2009 (UTC) PS Maybe this needs to moved to "Climate Change" and "Global Warming" as well. Last and finally I would advise anyone to enjoy the (currently) free O2 and ask serious questions, to pertinent Politicians about CO2 taxes. 84.73.60.107 (talk) 23:32, 22 August 2009 (UTC) (on a Swiss German Keybord this involves Acrobatics) ;=) I mean the signature... 84.73.60.107 (talk) 23:34, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Socks and Trolls
Please do not encourage Trolls and Socks on Global Warming by supporting them. The article is attacked by a Scibaby sock on average four or five times a week and they are best reverted with minimum attention otherwise you encourage them. If you want to change something or add something do it your own way in your own words please not by reinserting sock edits. --BozMo talk 18:06, 14 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't know who are considered Troll or Sock editors. I respond to every poster based on the quality of their rationale and information.Dikstr (talk) 21:22, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Edit Warring
Please do not edit warring as you have been doing in the last two days on Global Warming. I am afraid I have to block you for 48 hours for this. You are welcome to contest this block. Also, if you are prepared to promise not to continue an admin will shorten the block length. --BozMo talk 07:21, 31 December 2009 (UTC) You have been blocked from editing for to prevent further disruption caused by your engagement in an edit war. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text below.


 * The guardians of the status quo strike again!Dikstr (talk) 18:12, 6 March 2010 (UTC)


 * You've put this in the wrong section (feel free to delete this if you move your comment) William M. Connolley (talk) 20:36, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Global warming
Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia! In case you are not already aware, an article to which you have recently contributed is on article probation. --TS 22:29, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Mediation Cabal: Request for participation
Dear : Hello, my name is The Wordsmith; I'm a mediator from the Mediation Cabal, an informal mediation initiative here on Wikipedia. You've recently been named as a dispute participant in a mediation request here:
 * Mediation Cabal/Cases/2009-12-08/Global Warming

I'd like to invite you to join this mediation to try to get this dispute resolved, if you wish to do so; note, however, it is entirely your choice whether or not you participate, and if you don't wish to take part in it that's perfectly alright. Please read the above request and, if you do feel that you'd like to take part, please make a note of this on the mediation request page. If you have any questions relating to this or any other dispute, please do let me know; I'll try my best to help you out. Thank you very much. Best regards, The Wordsmith Communicate 21:04, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

WP:Edit warring at Global warming
When another editor expresses a good faith objection or request for discussion in response to one of your edits, please engage at the relevant talkpage rather than reverting. Thank you, - 2/0 (cont.) 11:02, 5 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I always do. If you have a point of view on the subject state it. Gratuitous advice doesn't add significantly to discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dikstr (talk • contribs) 23:21, 5 March 2010
 * Would you please stop edit warring? Several editors have expressed opposition to your proposed addition.  Your next step is to achieve consensus for that change, which cannot be maintained by eternally reverting any edit that removes it. --TS 23:38, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * And several editors have supported my view. But they get ignored by the defenders of the status quo as well.Dikstr (talk) 18:53, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for to prevent further disruption caused by your engagement in an edit war. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text below. 18:53, 8 March 2010 (UTC)Dikstr (talk)


 * The material you are edit warring over now is similar to the point you were arguing a few weeks ago, and has no more consensus now than it did then. You make a decent case at the talk page, but please do not carry out a simultaneous supplemental discussion in edit warring edit summaries. - 2/0 (cont.) 13:18, 24 March 2010 (UTC)


 * You are misinformed. I'm not edit warring. I've convened a discussion regarding the 'solar variation' section of 'global warming' in an effort to get a balanced statement agreed upon in it regarding solar forcing of climate. I have no idea what you are talking about re: 'simultaneous supplemental discussion in edit warring edit summaries'. Do you?Dikstr (talk) 01:12, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Warning: Socks
Please don't enable scibaby socks William M. Connolley (talk) 19:21, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Out of interest, why are you removing the strike-throughs from that comment? If you want to make a comment of your own, there's nothing to stop you. --TS 19:22, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:33, 24 November 2015 (UTC)