User talk:Nigelj/Archive 2

Climate change
Sorry for the confusion. I put the article in an old subpage of mine. I have moved it to the correct title. Please revisit the debate. Polargeo (talk) 10:24, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Content restriction violation
Hey Nigelj. Would you mind reverting this edit? It was in violation of the content restriction placed on the article, which reads (as can be found in a tag while on the edit page): ''This article is further subject to a content revert restriction - do not redo any edit that has been undone in the last 24 hours. Editors who fail to adhere to these standards may be blocked from editing for a short period. Seek consensus for any contentious edits at Talk:Climatic Research Unit hacking incident.''--Heyitspeter (talk) 23:51, 7 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I removed the restriction as not really in the Wikipedia spirit and unduly burdensome. Thank you for raising the discussion at the talkpage regarding that edit. - 2/0 (cont.) 06:07, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Greenhouse gases
I reverted your recent (9/2/09) edit to Greenhouse effect, destroying an edit of mine in the process. You made no contribution in the talk pages on this, any particular reason. Wikipedia contributors should always respect and explain, you have done neither. I think respect and explain is an excellent policy, do you?--Damorbel (talk) 19:38, 10 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Goodness me. Where to start?
 * At first, since you give no diffs, I thought you meant that I had missed or messed up an edit conflict with you by working at the same time. But I see that you have not edited that section since 5th Feb. This is the edit of mine that you reverted.
 * There is no need to start a section both here and on the article talk page every time you disagree with one of my edits. The article talk page is usually enough, as I 'watch' pages I have been editing.
 * Per WP:TPG you shouldn't address me directly in the heading of the section you create to discuss article content.
 * If you want to link to a user or talk page, use wikilinks like User:Nigelj or User talk:Nigelj rather than full URLs that then become external links.
 * Have you seen the note that appears under every edit window? It says, "If you do not want your writing to be edited, used, and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here". This is the basis of WP:BOLD. While you're at it, have a look at WP:OWN. If someone wants to "destroy" an edit of yours, that really is the way things always go eventually on Wikipedia. I have made about 3,000 edits to en:WP articles (you have made about 30) and I think most of them have will been altered by someone or other by now.
 * If you disagree with the content of my edit, then by all means start a talk section discussing the content. But not one talking about me, or my manners, or what I should do on talk pages. WP:NPA is explicit: "Comment on content, not on the contributor."
 * Finally, looking at WP:BRD, we see that I boldly made an edit, you reverted it, so now it is time to discuss the content in detail. This is going to be a pain as it was a large edit where I fixed lots of things: grammar, spelling, capitalisation, linking and the technical explanation with regard to the idealized greenhouse model. But we can have a go. The place to do that is on the article talk page, after I've fixed the section heading there.


 * See you there. --Nigelj (talk) 20:26, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Please consider signing our proposal.
A number of editors have been working on a proposal regarding the renaming of the Climatic Research Unit hacking incident and we are now in the process of working with people individually to try and garner support for this proposal. Please review the proposal and if you are willing to support and defend it please add your name to the list of signatories. If you have comments or concerns regarding the proposal please feel free to discuss them here. The goal of this effort is to find a name that everyone can live with and to make that name stick by having a strong show of unified support for it moving forward. Thanks. --GoRight (talk) 16:01, 11 February 2010 (UTC)


 * PS - I know that we don't usually see eye to eye on various topics but hopefully we can come together on this. ChrisO, Hipocrite, and I started working on a joint proposal and have been working to gather support for it ever since.  Please take a few minutes to give this proposal your full consideration and in the spirit of finding a compromise position both sides can live with.  Thanks.  --GoRight (talk) 16:01, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Please focus more attentively on productive discussion at General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement
The discussions at General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement are not meant to be general fora for discussion of other issues. Narrowly targeted productive comment at any thread is welcome, but please confine your comments to the substance of the request and closely related issues. For instance, if a request is made detailing edit warring by one party, it could be appropriate to provide context in the form of links to talkpage discussion or diffs of other parties engaged in the same edit war. It would not be appropriate, however, to bring unrelated issues to an already open request, discuss content issues, or engage in incivility or personal attacks. If someone else makes that you feel merits a reply but your reply would not itself be closely related to the original request, please raise make your reply at usertalk, open a new enforcement request, or start a thread at Wikipedia talk:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement. Thank you for your cooperation. A few diffs of posts that venture partially or wholly off topic, or would be better suited to other venues:. - 2/0 (cont.) 03:56, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Good Faith
I am having difficulty with and. Can you explain to me how your statements assume good faith to Wikipedia principles and policies? I would like to restore the syn tags to the paragraphs. Thanks Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 21:51, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * There is a full discussion of the matter at Talk:List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming, which you yourself started. The consensus between myself, Kim D. Petersen, Hipocrite and Polargeo was that the tags should be removed,which they have been. Please discuss it there if you have something further to add, or questions to ask. --Nigelj (talk) 22:09, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Nice job on gray literature
You helped put it in a nice context. SPhilbrick T  23:05, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks! It's nice to be able to help. --Nigelj (talk) 23:11, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

CRU article name
Hello,

I am writing you this message because you have participated in the RfC regarding the name of the Climatic Research Unit hacking incident article. As the previous discussion didn't actually propose a name, it was unfocused and didn't result in any measurable consensus. I have opened a new discussion on the same page, between the existing name and the proposed name Climatic Research Unit documents controversy. I have asked that no alternate names are proposed at this time. Please make your opinion known here. Thanks, Oren0 (talk) 05:44, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Why are you attacking me, when it's WMC who is the bad guy here?
"This aappears to have been created with a dubious edit summary and been spammed into articles sans consensus. I've reverted it out again, obviously. Get consensus for controversial changes *first* William M. Connolley (talk) 17:46, 21 February 2010 (UTC)". Here he calls my creation of a sub nav template spam (since he himself has removed it from the Global warming template since it should only have high level articles ...). Why do you attack me who is just answering these ridiculous WMC allegations? Nsaa (talk) 01:22, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * This is not an attack - I was trying to help you by reminding you to stop filling the talk page with WP:SOAP, and comments about other editors' behaviour, but to use the time to discuss template content and design. --Nigelj (talk) 11:04, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

AR4

 * Thanks, Dave! My first 'award'. I shall treasure it for all time. I must dig out some Douglas Adams and re-read; I so enjoyed it at the time. --Nigelj (talk) 22:14, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

1RR violation
I believe that you may have violated the 1RR rule on our Climategate article. Can you please self-revert? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:04, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It appears that Nsaa made a good faith mistake when he quickly reverted my addition to the article. He did this at 21:53 UTC with the comment, "I don't see that this has been discussed where you claim it has at Talk:Climatic_Research_Unit_hacking_incident". The discussion has been growing at that place since 07:26 today, and I added a specific justification for my edit to the bottom of that discussion at 21:45 - eight minutes before his revert. Even though it only takes a few seconds to revert a contribution, I am sure that Nsaa would not see what I had written and falsely claim that it wasn't there then disruptively revert my work without any discussion. I'm sure the discussion there is more fruitful than trying to work our way through the 55 individual submissions to this committee, one by one, with WP editors doing the WP:OR of evaluating the pros and cons of each one in advance of the committee itself doing exactly that, and then publishing its findings. --Nigelj (talk) 22:27, 27 February 2010 (UTC)


 * No, Nsaa did the right thing by restoring that content. To be honest, you shouldn't have even deleted it the first time.  That was extremely disruptive given that discussion was ongoing on the article talk page.  Apparently, 1RR allows you to be disruptive once every 24 hours, but not twice.  Oh well, I tried to ask nicely.   A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:48, 27 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I didn't delete it, I replaced it with something much more constructive and neutral and possibly, for all I know, within the law. There are laws against publishing a discussion of evidence before a legal case, I don't know if there is with regard to a parliamentary enquiry. Either way, there are far too many submissions for us to evaluate each one. This was agreed at about 1300 today with regard to the IoP submission and the UEA one should clearly be treated the same. --Nigelj (talk) 22:52, 27 February 2010 (UTC), 23:14, 27 February 2010 (UTC)


 * You reverted the first paragraph and deleted the second paragraph twice. Anyway, I don't want to get into a debate with you.  It's up to the admins to decide if editors who make disruptive and tendentious edits are allowed to continue with impunity.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:18, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * That is really quite an unpleasant and, I feel, personally offensive remark. --Nigelj (talk) 23:22, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I've refactored my comment to make it clear that I am addressing the problems with your edits. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:26, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Warning
You have broke the 1RR rule (see General sanctions/Climate change probation) that is in the Climatic Research Unit hacking incident by these edits  and I suppose you will get blocked for it by an admin. Nsaa (talk) 22:26, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * See above. It looked obvious to me that you had somehow missed the comment that I had added to the ongoing discussion eight minutes before your revert. In that discussion it appears to me that several of us had reached a happy consensus on the best way to deal with the 55 submissions. Unlike in the acrimonious debate below, where editors were trying to evaluate the relative importance of phrases in the UEA submission, and in the published correspondence between UEA and the authorities. Such a debate, as agreed above is hopeless WP:OR and is actually us doing the job of the Parliamentary Committee. I'm sure you will agree with this when you give it a few moments' thought. There was a whole discussion and a specific justification in place long before your revert. A clear good faith error on your part, believing that there was no discussion on Talk. --Nigelj (talk) 22:39, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Notification of Request for Enforcement
I wish to notify you that I have filed a request for enforcement for violating 1RR on our Climategate article. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:53, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Per the 1RR restriction at Climatic Research Unit hacking incident, I have blocked this account for 24 hours. I note that you believed the revert of your original revert was in error, but you should have requested the editor to self revert or brought the matter to the talkpage where consensus might have been formed. This sanction is noted on the enforcement page. LessHeard vanU (talk) 01:14, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Bad block
I think this is a bad block, and I have made my opinion clear on both the enforcement page and on LHvU's talk page. I don't think your first "revert" was anything of the sort, so I think you've been stuffed by a frivolous complaint. If you wish to appeal the block, which has now blighted your previously empty block log, feel free to refer to my support in this matter. -- Scjessey (talk) 01:44, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

CC enforcement page
Sorry for the some what wrong summary on your part, but I didn't want to get bogged down in a discussion with AQFK about whether you had or had not made 2 reverts there. My point there was that WMC hadn't done any revert that I could see and whatever you did had already been discussed. I figured that if I worded it as an edit and a revert, I would get into a discussion about that instead of the bigger point that of his list of three editors, two hadn't warred and the other one had already been discussed.83.86.0.74 (talk) 05:06, 3 March 2010 (UTC) (sorry for being anon, guess I really should figure out a handle for me here)

AfD nomination of Climate change denial
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Climate change denial. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Articles for deletion/Climate change denial (4th nomination). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:08, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Anchor link
Before you made this change, did you try it: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Representational_State_Transfer&oldid=349002961#Guiding_principles_of_a_REST_interface ? Instead of overlooking it, I added the anchor tag, which works in my client. -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:41, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Fine. Sorry, I didn't see that. I've reverted my change. Silly me. --Nigelj (talk) 16:25, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Hey, you convinced me
Please look over Talk:Climate change denial. I've changed my mind and have some ideas for adding back the information, but I don't want to do it without getting some feedback. When you get a chance, please look it over. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 02:52, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Please note
Concerning the article Climate change denial, has opened an enforcement case against me at    Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests  for enforcement. As someone involved with the page, I thought you should be informed. ► RATEL ◄ 06:15, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Please e-mail me
Nigel, please e-mail me. There are some things I'd like to discuss privately with you. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:29, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Regarding the CRU E-mail controversy? )--Heyitspeter (talk) 22:48, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * None of your business. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:12, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Procrastinate
You'll want kick yourself for this one, I'm sure. You referred to weather announcers "procrastinating" on subjects they know nothing about, when I think you meant "pontificating". If it's any consolation, my phone wants to spell the word "sootheiabuing"! Tasty monster (=TS ) 23:53, 6 April 2010 (UTC)


 * D'oh! That'll teach me to make comments just before bed! Thanks. It's nice to know someone reads all this drivel. P.S. That phone of yours, it'll be more famous than you one day. --Nigelj (talk) 14:59, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Response to your removed paragraph
(I had already composed a response to your argument and when I tried to save, you had removed it. So here it is, for what it's worth :))

But the reality is public perception does not match the scientific consensus, and the more we try to avoid documenting that plain fact, the more we look like we (Wikipedia editors) have an agenda in this fight, which ironically feeds their conspiracy theories. It's like Climategate -- those scientists' attempts to suppress dissenting papers (even if they were crap) and withhold data from skeptics caused a controversy that was much more widespread and damaging than if those papers had been published and the data released. Climategate gave the conspiracy theorists a smoking gun, and even if it was just a cap gun, they still used it to create a furor, and that furor sways public opinion further against the science. The same happens here. When we try too hard to discredit skeptics or suppress well-reported public information, it gives us the appearance of bias that is much more damaging than if we'd just dispassionately documented what's out there and avoid the urge to discredit and disprove every single point. That's the irony here -- by working so hard to document the scientific truth at the expense of all else, and by doing it in a way that features a very prominent climate scientist who is caustic to all opposition, you give skeptics in the media the ammunition they need to discredit Wikipedia as a source and thereby cause more people to distrust the science. That's what I meant by the sentence you referenced. ATren (talk) 14:04, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Overdue barnstar
&lt;blush> Thanks very much &lt;/blush> --Nigelj (talk) 13:09, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Knot (unit) deletion
Don't Germany and some of Scandinavia use meters per second for wind speeds? I know I've seen it somewhere in our travels. And silly as it may be, I find the rough conversions you deleted useful. I could just revert your deletion, but I find that a little abrupt for an experienced user that I don't know.

BTW, given your sailing experiences, you may be interested in User:Jameslwoodward/Travels which was largely under sail and our latest project. . . Jim - Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 22:50, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi Jim. I don't know about the countries you mention - I've not done any sailing up that way. My main point was that there are many conversions that people have to do in the world, and this one was getting WP:UNDUE detail. They're all easily seen from the conversion table that has recently appeared there anyway. For example, I'm sure in the Caribbean, everyone on the SSB radio nets gave windspeeds in mph not knots, which is about 15% different. If we start explaining how to do the maths for each combination, we'll never finish! UK sailors in the Americas, Americans in the Med, Caribbeans in Scandinavia, Hawaiians in China... Thanks for the links, I'll have a look :-) --Nigelj (talk) 09:07, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * OK -- I'm not jumping up and down about it -- I just find easy round number conversions interesting and helpful.. . Jim - Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 14:18, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

CRU hacking
At one point in a recent comment you refer to "pov vandalism" or something similar. Would you edit that comment to remove the apparent inference of bad faith? Loose use of the word "vandalism" should be strenuously avoided in the context of Wikipedia, as I'm sure you appreciate. Tasty monster (=TS ) 13:51, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * OK. Done. --Nigelj (talk) 18:10, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Low-carbon economy
"Misrepresentation of the facts" - what facts? "Scientists" - what scientists? "Public" - what public? "Most of", "recently" and, best of all, "opinion" - can you come up with anything less factual than that? If you want to have facts, bring them - with references. But please don't go telling me I'm misrepresenting non-existent "facts" - all you got so far are allegiations. Even if a maior part of the publicly represented science community seems to be in agreement about the current development of global climate. Best regards, --G-41614 (talk) 08:52, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Please read through Scientific opinion on climate change, the article referenced in the relevant sentence at Low-carbon economy. You will find many references there. Then there is the parent article, Global warming. --Nigelj (talk) 09:37, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * About to re-read them. So far SoCC still reads like OR with the occasional referenced point. A suggestion of my own would be the Hartwell Paper. Agreeing or not, makes for interesting reading. Especially regarding the public opinion. I still maintain that the sentence in question does not meet the standards of this place, as low as they might seem on occasion. --G-41614 (talk) 11:44, 21 May 2010 (UTC) I see now why you felt the need to say I was "misrepresenting" "facts". It could've been a better job, but still, as of now it's nothing but hot air. Except maybe the scientists with the reference to SoCC. But still - "most of scientists"? Hm.

Cello web browser
Talk:List_of_web_browsers could you read first and discuss before revert and "mark as spam"? mabdul 14:38, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Climate change RFC
You wrote:
 * Climate change is an unusual phenomenon. It is the first time that scientific work has uncovered and described an issue that is so important to our very survival and that is going to drive political, economic and social change worldwide for the indefinite future.

I would take minor issue with this. Think of the nuclear arms race of the Cold War era. 69.228.170.24 (talk) 07:30, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I gave the example of space exploration, and your example is similar: Sometimes scientific research shows that something is possible, then the political process may decide (for whatever reasons), 'OK, let's do it'. In the case of global warming, science has shown that something bad is inevitable unless we do something to avert it. This is not a time for the political processes of the world to say, 'Nah, let's not bother, shall we?'. If you want an analogy, how about if astronomers found a large asteroid heading for the earth, to hit it in 30 - 50 years time. Could anyone say, 'Let's just leave it - I'll be dead by that time, and I want to make a lot more money for me before I die, not waste it on people who aren't even born yet"? --Nigelj (talk) 10:13, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Comment requested
Nigel, I wonder whether you would be willing to comment on the dispute summarized at Talk:Sailing_faster_than_the_wind.--Gautier lebon (talk) 10:02, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi again. OK. I've been and added two pennies-worth. --Nigelj (talk) 16:42, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

EC?
looks problematic. Could you make sure your edit did what you wanted it to do? Hipocrite (talk) 15:20, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I have largely undone two of your (Nigelj) reverts. Do not touch the comments of any other user in that AfD please, as so far, whether by accident or by intent, you have really screwed it up. If you have responses to make to others, do nothing but that and be mindful of what to do if an edit conflict message pops up. Tarc (talk) 15:36, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I am very sorry about those two inadvertent deletions of other people's comments. Of course neither were intentional. The pace of edit conflicts on that page is so large that I think it is no longer worth trying to contribute to it. I was no aware that after the first E/C, you get no warning about a second one when using the E/C page to complete the edit, no matter how quick you are. Normally I don not use that page as it carries a copy of the whole page and rarely works, but as this had no section headings, I felt it was as likely as anything else to work. It clearly doesn't. As long as my !vote is there, I'm not prepared to risk RfE or any of the other nasty tricks that get played on you when you engage with these people, so I'm outa there. --Nigelj (talk) 15:46, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Climate change moving to Workshop
This Arbitration case is now moving into the Workshop phase. Please read Arbitration/Guide to arbitration to understand the process. Editors should avoid adding to their evidence sections outside of slight tweaks to aid in understanding; large-scale additions should not be made. Many proposals have already been made and there has already been extensive discussion on them, so please keep the Arbitrators' procedures in mind, namely to keep "workshop proposals as concise as reasonably possible." Workshop proposals should be relevant and based on already provided evidence; evidence masquerading as proposals will likely be ignored. ~ Amory ( u  •  t  •  c ) 20:38, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

dir/w
In reference to your comments on backslash: Indeed on MSDOS 1.0 is was VERY common to not put a space between the commands and the slash-led arguments, and I suspect it was typed this way more often than with a space. This is a good example because there really isn't any other way to be compatible, it is impossible to call a program called "dir/w" unless you type "dir\w". If spaces had been needed before the slash then the problems would have been equivalent to the Unix problem with files starting with a dash and could have been solved by adding a "no more swiches" switch, ie to remove a file called "-f" on Unix you type "rm -- -f" where "--" is the "no more switches" switch.Spitzak (talk) 20:08, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. It's good to clear it up. --Nigelj (talk) 20:12, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Heartland Institute
The editors pushing their POV on the climate change articles are following a "script", metaphorically speaking, written by the Heartland Institute and its supporters, that various commentators have observed as a propaganda war against AGW proponents and the science supporting it. Excerpts from the proceedings for the Fourth International Conference on Climate Change held in May by the Institute, is a virtual mirror of the arguments we are seeing on Wikipedia. Might be a good idea to take a closer look and see what's really going on here. These people should not be anywhere near an encyclopedia. Viriditas (talk) 21:58, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * That's an interesting thought. Do you have a link to these proceedings to have a look for similarities of any kind? --Nigelj (talk) 22:30, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm on a cell at the moment, so I can't provide any links, but I gave you enough pointers to have a look for yourself. More importantly, it's interesting to see how their primary argument is constructed so we can address it each time it pops up here. One thing we've been seeing a lot lately is editors who claim that all RS are equivalent and we must represent both POV.  A few editors have addressed this, but not enough.  You see, this idea is embedded into Heartland's tactical strategy.  Their proponents (look at nutleys contribs for names) argue (I say argue and not believe because I doubt very much that they truly believe what they argue) that climate change science is politically motivated, and as such, its conclusions can't be trusted.  It's important to understand this position, because their argument follows from this premise.  From here, these "climate denialists" claim to be skeptical of the science, but that isn't actually true; They were already in denial mode before looking at the science, so this is not an open and honest investigation.  Now, because of their premise, the entirety of their argument is the construction and dissemination of, ironically enough, a politically-motivated attack on climate science, its published authors and organizations.  They then seed the discourse using major media outlets, with speakers, consultants, "experts", and editorialists on every news program and in every publication.  They can even be found on BBC and PBS on a regular basis.  Often times, a scientist will not be present to comment, and if they are, it's generally not the job of a scientist to opine on public policy.  These types of people live in the gaps between scientific data and public policy that is influenced by the data, and that's where the spin machine resides.  When and where the sources bridge this gap is where the solution to this problem resides.  As long as scientists remain on the sidelines, and claim that they can't get involved in public policy, these people will take advantage of the situation by trying to spin the science to influence public policy.  In fact, they are counting on it. Viriditas (talk) 00:15, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * You mean the Heartland Institute isn't a rs on AGW? I'm shocked. More to the point, Nigel, you've misplaced an apostrophe in your comment where you talk about "referring to it's critics". Some people seem to pounce on such errors, and we don't want another debate about suchlike. Also, as a climate change sceptic, I take exception to your comment about "From what I know, I just can't decide if man is contributing to global warming or not" which is my position. Of course, I do find that all the best sources show that there's a clear scientific consensus on the subject, but I don't know it for myself. . . dave souza, talk 19:41, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Dave. You're absolutely right :-) --Nigelj (talk) 19:46, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Renewable Energy Portal
Hi. Some of us are setting up a new Renewable Energy Portal. Feel free to contribute and discuss the matter at Portal talk:Renewable energy. Johnfos (talk) 19:39, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Sextant
Hi, just wanted to say thanks for including that info about Sextant use. It's exactly what I meant and really informative! 82UK (talk) 22:19, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. It was a good suggestion, I think. --Nigelj (talk) 05:41, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

CC brouhaha
You have, of course, divined a likely motivation for the proposed sanctions. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 20:48, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * :-) Yes, I did feel, 'Now we're getting somewhere' --Nigelj (talk) 20:52, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Re: User 86.83.239.142/62.58.36.58
What's the situation regarding and ? They were blocked for 2 weeks in January 'per CU' [86...], but have been editing ever since including taking turns to edit the same article. I cannot believe that this is the normal outcome for block evasion blocks? --Nigelj (talk) 19:43, 2 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I can't recall off-hand, and without checkuser I can't look to see what's going on. Unfortunately this does tend to happen with block evasion blocks; they're only a stop-gap measure as severe sockers will just wait for the block to end and carry on where they left off. Sorry for the long delay, I've been inactive for several months and I'm just returning now. Hers fold  (t/a/c) 18:28, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you.
Thank you for your contribution to Talk:Politics of global warming (United States). 99.155.155.164 (talk) 20:54, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * My pleasure - I hope it's useful, perhaps as a starting point for a compromise. --Nigelj (talk) 20:57, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately User:Arthur Rubin has undone the work there now, see Special:Contributions/Arthur_Rubin 99.190.91.9 (talk) 04:10, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Contributor opinion vs. "the facts"

 * don't forget to balance what you say they say against the known facts

Sorry if I failed to express myself clearly at Talk:Global warming conspiracy theory. I was trying to summarize what I remembered about one side's expressed viewpoints. I myself am not a source for anything, let alone a spokesman for any side.

The article is about claims that people in the real world outside of Wikipedia have been making about the Anthropogenic Global Warming theory (AGW). I was just trying to point out that some of them think there is evidence that 20% or more of climate scientists think AGW is incorrect, or that the facts do not support it. I'm not saying any of the following:
 * 1) that AGW is incorrect
 * 2) that the facts don't support it
 * 3) that more than 20% of climate scientists disagree with it

I was saying that certain advocates were making point #3. I hope this is more clear, now. :-) --Uncle Ed (talk) 21:12, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

HTML5 ref
Hello! You recently expressed an opinion on the validity of this link on HTML5. I was hoping you could participate in the discussion going on at Talk:HTML5 and hopefully diffuse that crisis before it starts. --Gyrobo (talk) 18:09, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for responding, I completely misinterpreted your edit summary. --Gyrobo (talk) 02:13, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that. I was trying to fit too many thoughts into too few words! But 'it's good to talk' (that's a quote from a Telecom company's ad campaign). --Nigelj (talk) 08:52, 19 October 2010 (UTC)