User talk:IHaveAMastersDegree

Welcome!
Hello, IHaveAMastersDegree, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, especially what you did for American Geophysical Union. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful: Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome! RockMagnetist (talk) 06:08, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Getting Started
 * Introduction to Wikipedia
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article
 * Simplified Manual of Style

Skeptic
Hi. Thanks for your work clarifying ambiguous uses of "skeptic". In this edit, though, you changed the meaning so that the AI supports the former PM's and colleagues' skepticism. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 11:21, 28 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you for pointing out my mistake! I misunderstood the original meaning when I tried to fix the "skeptic" ambiguity.  Is there a way to modify it to fix both points of confusion?  IHaveAMastersDegree (talk) 18:05, 28 December 2013 (UTC)


 * That looks fine to me. In ongoing threaded discussions here, begin each post with one more colon than the previous post - that creates stepped (progressively deeper) indenting. Have fun. If you need any help just ask at my talk page.  --20:55, 29 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the helpful tips! I've discovered that that a lot of folks just don't recognize the huge difference between scientific skepticism and global warming denial. I just created a user page to try to explain the reason that the term "climate skeptic" is ambiguous as well as lacking in neutrality.  IHaveAMastersDegree (talk) 21:29, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Your Many Revisions about global-warming or climate-change "skeptics"
Hi! I have seen your many revisions that change the term "skeptics" to "those who reject the evidence", "contrarian activists", "anti-climate-science", etc. I've seen that your user page and your edit comments explain that you would like to reduce ambiguity, but I'm afraid that the actual effect is to change people's descriptions to something that they could regard as false or pejorative. Is there any chance that you will reconsider all your revisions, revert the ones about skepticism, and cease?Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:17, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Seeing that you did not reply, and instead did more editing in the same vein, I take it that the answer is: "no chance". I have taken my concerns to the Administrators Noticeboard, which can be seen here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#User:IHaveAMastersDegree Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:56, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your comment. I'm certainly willing to revisit anything that one of these individuals considers to be false or pejorative. My intent is to conform with neutrality by avoiding a label and instead describe their position in the most accurate way (based on what has actually been written about an individual or what they have stated rather than assumption or synthesis). The term "climate skeptic" is a label, not a description of position. I expect that many individuals who have been defined by that term consider "climate skeptic" itself to be false and/or pejorative. If a label is to be used, I think it needs to have an unambiguous, mutually-agreed-upon definition. Unfortunately "climate skeptic" is not defined on Wikipedia. IHaveAMastersDegree (talk) 17:01, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I tried to post this a few minutes ago but got a "edit conflict" message. It was written before I saw your last post. I think it is important to give people a chance to respond before making assumptions. IHaveAMastersDegree (talk) 17:03, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Notification of arbitration committee sanctions on climate change articles
Please be advised - you are editing somewhat contentiously in a topic area subject to special sanctions and scrutiny due to a prior arbitration committee case - see WP:ARBCC for full details. This notification puts you on notice of that decision, and that standard Discretionary Sanctions are in force across all articles on this topic matter. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:27, 31 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Please let me know what I have done that is contentious. I will be happy to stop but I don't know what I did that is contentious. IHaveAMastersDegree (talk) 21:53, 31 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I've been looking back at a random sample of your edits, and they're pretty variable: some of the early ones are frankly terrible, but you seem to be learning fairly fast. I would suggest going back through your edits and reverting any which you're not completely happy with.  You might also find it useful to start editing in another area: it's rarely a good idea to edit on just one topic.  Regards, Jonathan A Jones (talk) 22:27, 31 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I admit that when I started I didn't really know what I was doing and have been learning as I go. I will take your advice and stop editing new material and will pass through everything I already edited again and either revert or revise (in a defensible way) what I did the first time.  I've been getting some help and advice from others along the way, and I appreciate it.  I probably won't be editing anything for a couple days as I have other things to do now.


 * Masters, if you are making contentious edits, especially to WP:BLP pages, you need BLP-grade RSs. Please read WP:BLP carefully, and refrain from editorializing. I have reverted a number of your recent edits. I second Prof. Jones suggestion that you try editing in another area, perhaps one less-controversial. --Pete Tillman (talk) 08:23, 2 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I do not understand what is contentious about removing an ambiguous label and replacing it with an accurate description of opinion. The term "climate skeptic" and similar expressions are incorrect in the cases I edited and in some in some instances constitute  pejorative editorializing and not supported by sources. Can you specify something I did that was actually contentious?  IHaveAMastersDegree (talk) 13:21, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

James Delingpole
When something is removed as a BLP problem, please do not reinsert it without discussing first and getting a consensus that it is not a BLP problem. GB fan 16:57, 10 January 2014 (UTC)


 * This is being discussed at WP:BLP/N. See the following thread.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:15, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Are you me?
Detective Dipshit seems to think so. You may proceed here if you want defend yourself against accusations of being my sockpuppet, the rules don't require you to, though, if you don't want to. --Kaj Taj Mahal (talk) 04:19, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Notification
I have filed an arbitration enforcement request against you, you may respond, Here Darkness Shines (talk) 21:01, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Caution
Hi IHaveAMastersDegree. You have reverted material three times in the past 24 hours at James Delingpole. I strongly urge you to read WP:3RR and heed the advice in the discretionary sanction warning above. You should use talk page discussion to gain support for your edits, rather than simply reverting content that you object to. Edit warring, especially reverting more than three times in 24 hours, can result in being blocked from editing.- MrX 03:43, 18 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your concern. Most of the reversions I have made have been corrections of my own mistakes.  I pointed this out on talk already.

Indefinitely blocked
I have indefinitely blocked you because technical evidence connects you to a historical abusive editor of climate change articles. (Administrators: This is a checkuser block.) AGK  [•] 23:13, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you User:Salvio giuliano. I just confirmed my email address and sent you email.. I tried to put a YGM notification on your talk page but I can't because I'm blocked. IHaveAMastersDegree (talk) 13:01, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement
For the record, the enforcement discussion was closed because AGK blocked you; I feel it is appropriate to resume the discussion since the block was done in error (which caused disruption to that discussion) and as such I have reopened that discussion. - Penwhale &#124; dance in the air and follow his steps 18:07, 21 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks -- for the record, Masters appears to believe he's off the hook: . --Pete Tillman (talk) 19:55, 21 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you for letting me know. I will address any concerns on the discussion page.  IHaveAMastersDegree (talk) 21:26, 21 January 2014 (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) 17:02, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Revisions about global-warming or climate-change "skeptics" or "deniers"
Your recent contributions shows you once again changing BLPs to label people as deniers, without making that clear in edit summaries or showing sources consistently. Is there any chance that you will reconsider all your revisions, and revert the ones about skepticism where there is no clear consensus for them on talk pages? I am pinging administrators who previously commented on this talk page about your skeptic edits (including one who seems to have supported you): Georgewilliamherbert dave souza GB fan  Sandstein  ), for whom this is just a heads-up that a revival might be happening. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 13:32, 22 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your comment. In the cases you mention, I changed changed the label from "skeptic" to "denier" because the term "skeptic" is ambiguous at best. In the years since we last addressed this issue on wikipedia, skeptics have repeatedly objected to the confusing misuse of the term "skeptic" to mean "denier". Many publications and news media (notably the New York Times, the Associated Press, and now the Guardian) agree with the skeptical community and have stated that they will no longer use the term "skeptic" to mean the opposite of what skeptics say that it means. I would be happy to pause my editing long enough to discuss this on talk pages and address your concern on a case-by-case basis.IHaveAMastersDegree (talk) 14:18, 22 May 2019 (UTC)


 * So please pause. Here's an obvious first case, since someone else already reverted your edit to Andrew Montford. All you have to do is go to the talk page, defend your edit with the argument you've just described, and see whether you get consensus. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 01:31, 23 May 2019 (UTC)


 * IHaveAMastersDegree: Given the prior arbitration enforcement (old, but you have a long history) you should really really think hard about how fast you want to go on this and whether you want to talk things over with other editors on talk pages first, and supply reliable sources alwyas.
 * I'm not a fan of those who are in some sense skeptical or in denial over climate change either, but Wikipedia policy on biographical articles is not extra flesible for righteous causes. It's intentionally consistent everywhere.  You should strive to remember that policy and be extra careful here.
 * Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 08:21, 23 May 2019 (UTC)


 * OK, I have paused like I said I would. I will defend the changes case-by-case on the talk pages. In the 5 years or so since I was last active, a better understanding by the public and by journalists has emerged that the term "climate skeptic" is an intentionally-confusing and misleading euphemism for "climate change denier". It is no longer used by the most objective and responsible news organizations. I would argue that Wikipedia pages should reflect precise and current definitions of words. IHaveAMastersDegree (talk) 14:12, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
 * If there are reliable news sources for the specific terminology for a specific person, then that's legitimately includable. But find and provide those citations.  Thanks.  Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 06:01, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
 * IHaveAMastersDegree: You commented on the Andrew Montford talk page here and here but you didn't try to defend your edit -- you didn't even mention it -- and your edit stays reverted. Is this all that you'll do when your other edits are reverted? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 22:03, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the prod. My comments were intended to solicit responses and consensus for changes and 24 hours didn't seem like too long to wait given that most people have busy lives. Nevertheless I went ahead and made changes justified by yesterday's comment on the talk page. IHaveAMastersDegree (talk) 22:39, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Second warning. You added this despite saying you would pause and after being warned that you "should strive to remember [BLP] policy and be extra careful here". You ought to be aware that re-inserting contentious material without consensus is a BLP violation, and that the onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content. I think a DS alert is not required because you previously were "sanctioned within the area of conflict". Your edit was reverted and I hope that's the end of that case. Now, for a second case I have reverted your unsourced edit of Forrest Mims. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:36, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
 * What are you talking about? I did exactly as you suggested by taking it to the talk page. Then you prodded me into making the change by saying "is that all you'll do when other edits are reverted?", so I did. Now you are issuing a BS "second warning" for doing exactly what you encouraged me to do. On top of that, the change was to a BLP but the part I changed was not a description of a person but an organization. Why are you encouraging edits that you turn around and undo and then claim are in violation? IHaveAMastersDegree (talk) 20:35, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Nobody encouraged you to edit the Montford article again. I have tried to encourage you to self-revert (which you didn't) and/or pause (which you didn't) and/or go to a talk page and defend an edit and get consensus (which you didn't). By the way your edit to say Montford is "Known for ... climate change denial" is not a description of an organization, and I am not the editor who undid it. Now are you going try to defend your edit of the Mims article? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:11, 27 May 2019 (UTC)