User talk:Jc-S0CO/Archives/2008/2

WikiProject Films January 2008 Newsletter
The January 2008 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. If you have any suggestions for improvement or desire other topics to be covered, please leave a message on the talk page of one of the editors.Thank you. Nehrams2020 (talk) 01:33, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Killian Documents
Please explain your recent edit to Killian Documents on the article's Talk page. Specifically, you removed from the opening sentence the critical information that experts have characterized the documents as probable forgeries. What was your reason for doing this? 67.168.86.129 (talk) 14:43, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Because it was redundant information - this is said again within that same paragraph. Besides, the use of "some" and "probable" softened the impact in the lead: they were confirmed as forgeries by many experts, with very few claiming them to be authentic. ~ S0CO ( talk 17:14, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Request for comment
Hi. A little back, after a Talk page discussion, I placed on Global Warming with "Relative weight of warming/cooling radiative forcing components as estimated by the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report" as the description, and I had given some thought to have the description clear and brief for non-experts. But that was later changed by UBeR (while I was blocked) to "The radiative forcing in 2005 relative to 1750 as estimated by the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report," but I think this description is not as informative, if not being outright cryptic, for a typical user of Wikipedia articles for this type of subject. I had created a new Talk page section proposing changing the wording back to its original, and asked for comments. Only UBeR responded a couple of days later with just I like my wording, actually. I asked him to explain that but he didn't and after a couple of more days, I finally changed the wording back to the original. He then almost immediately reverted me. I reverted back and explained on his talk page how he had ample opportunity to comment before hand but didn't. But he only reverted again, and appears not to want to get into a serious discussion. I have to avoid even a hint of getting into a revert war (which he knows all about), so I'm just requesting some other GW regulars to stop by and offer an opinion on the wording if they have one. Thanks in advance. -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 16:51, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Question
I noticed you supported the rollback feature for non-admins. I have two questions: (1) do you want rollback and (2) you realize it's for vandalism-reversion, and edits that require an explanation for reversion should not be reverted using rollback? Acalamari 19:53, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, and yes. ~ S0CO ( talk 04:38, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you, rollback granted. :) For information on rollback, see New admin school/Rollback and Rollback feature. Good luck. Acalamari 20:18, 12 February 2008 (UTC)