User talk:Torontokid2006

Welcome to Wikipedia
Welcome!

Hello, Torontokid2006, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using 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! . . dave souza, talk 20:40, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
 * Manual of Style
 * Thank you!! Torontokid2006 (talk) 23:02, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

On those odd numbers
Actually, I'm not sure which numbers you mean! In your watchlist, the numbers after the article name give the time of the edit, and in brackets how many bytes (same thing as alphabetical or numeric characters, I think) were added or subtracted. In article histories, the number in brackets after the editor's name etc. is the total number of bytes in the article – this is only of much significance when the article gets huge, and there's pressure to split out sections keeping a brief summary, and taking care to maintain WP:NPOV in all the articles. As for addictive, beware of Wikipediholism. Regarding which, unfortunately global warming is a bit of a battleground which is either addictive or drives you off. Thanks for your sensible and well considered edits. All the drama is certainly a big time sink, and it can be very off-putting having to face the possibility of tedious arguments when editing some articles. However, with good verification from sources and care not to do original research then it's always possible to get well justified changes made. You noticed the banter about our communistic comrade, whose pen name was explained in an earlier version of his page. He's got good scientific credentials and gives sound advice on the subject. At its best, Wikipedia can do well at describing such culturally divisive issues, and has policies that should give due weight to mainstream science where applicable. It also has guidance on dealing with fringe views. At its worst, it's a bit of a struggle, but in a worthy cause. Just remember that Wikipedia is not a reliable source! . . dave souza, talk 19:39, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * thanks for delving into the odd numbers. I think you're right, I think they represent the amount of bites added to an article or discussion. I've definitely learned a lot in the past couple of days. Wikipedia is definitely not a reliable source and it should be used with caution and source checking. Torontokid2006 (talk) 01:18, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Since I've given links to the main article content policies in this section, it seems a useful place to link the behaviour policies and guidelines which set rules for interactions with other editors. Etiquette proposes the worthwhile ideal, but at the very least civility is demanded, and there must be no personal attacks. Since Wikipedia is multinational there has to be quite a lot of tolerance of different cultural concepts. For example, it's merely my own view that it's always a bad idea to call a statement a lie, implying that the editor is a liar, but it's fine to describe it as misleading or incorrect which leaves open the possibility that it was just an error. Always assume good faith on the part of other editors, they may be mistaken but they undoubtedly believe what they're doing is for the best. Although these are essential standards, "calling a spade a spade" gives good guidance on how to be direct. To add to the fun, all policies can be edited, so it's worth checking that they currently say what you remember them saying! Sorry if it seems a bit of a minefield, but as noted below is one of the areas where extra care is needed. One extra handy link: WP:TALK notes that you shouldn't alter anyone else's comments except in specific circumstances, one being that you can delete comments from your own talk page. So, delete this if you wish! (or, probably better to archive it) . . dave souza, talk 07:45, 2 June 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, Global Warming, is on article probation. A detailed description of the terms of article probation may be found at Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation. Also note that the terms of some article probations extend to related articles and their associated talk pages. ''The above is a templated message. Please accept it as a routine friendly notice, not as a claim that there is any problem with your edits. Thank you.''

Thparkth (talk) 10:36, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks Thparkth Torontokid2006 (talk) 22:30, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 00:39, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

For the record...
I don't see the friendly back and forth between us two on Global Warming as edit warring - we seem to be agreeing workable compromises as we go. I don't bring an agenda to the climate change articles, other than to try to keep them in line with the manual of style and other Wikipedia policies aimed at producing good, useful articles. With all the fighting between the two "sides" that often gets forgotten...

Just as something to think about, have you ever seen the manual of style section on article leads? In particular, relative emphasis. Basically the material in the lead should summarize what's in the rest of the article. It shouldn't make any significant claims that aren't explored in more detail in the article body. Right now the article body for Global Warming doesn't mention oil company propaganda or similarities to the tobacco industry in any way. I would be a lot happier about having this stuff in the lead if it was properly developed in the body.

Cheers,

Thparkth (talk) 01:02, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that you DID say we were edit warring. I just wanted to get it on record that I don't think we are. If you don't think we are, and I don't think we are, it's highly unlikely that we are ;)


 * PS You don't need to reply on my talk page - if you reply here I'll see it on my watchlist.


 * Thparkth (talk) 01:08, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * yeah I never thought we were edit warring :) So thanks for clarifying just in case. I appreciate that. Haha you can see it? k noobie mistake! Goddamn i always forget to sign my comments!! lol


 * Well, some people like to have all the replies to them on their own talk page so they get the "you have new messages" banner. Some people like to leave a template on people's talk pages, directing them to the actual reply somewhere else, but most experienced editors view that as turning one problem (your messages are on someone else's talk page) into two problems (your messages are still on someone else's talk page, and now your talk page is littered with useless crappy talkback templates). Frankly it's not one of the better parts of wikipedia's design. For me, and most people I interact with, the best thing to do is just to reply where ever we're already talking - I check my watchlist obsessively enough that I'll see your reply.


 * The talkback template looks like this by the way:


 * One more thing you might not be aware of, it's conventional to go one-level-deeper in indentation when you reply to a comment. So if a comment is two indents deep (like this one), which you can tell because the lines start ::, you prefix your reply lines with :::. It all makes sense if you try it.. mostly. Feel free to use this thread or my talk page as a sandbox if you want to try any of this. Thparkth (talk) 01:21, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * that's weird because I remember reading in the wiki guidelines that you indent once but should not indent any further if you're discussing the same topic. Hmm.. might just be a preference.
 * You might be thinking of Indentation. It does say that all replies to the same comment should be at the same indentation level, but of course a reply to a reply isn't a reply to the original comment. I'm not sure how much sense that makes. Anyway, this is what everyone does, right or wrong ;) Thparkth (talk) 01:28, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * nope you're right. However, I noticed that some people just indent no matter what. Even if they are replying to the original post :S Either way I've read the indentation article more carefully and I think I understand it better now. So thx. Torontokid2006 (talk) 01:36, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Linking users
To link to user talk pages place "User:" in front of the user you wish to link to. For example, User:Torontokid2006 links to User:Torontokid2006 while Toronotokid2006 links to Torontokid2006. Regards, -Atmoz (talk) 16:42, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * thanks atmoz :p Torontokid2006 (talk) 06:17, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 01:33, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

3rr
you have broken the wp:3rr with your last revert on Global warming the removal of tags placed before discussion is completed is also against policy, please self revert mark nutley (talk) 07:19, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * As I am trying to maintain the quality of the article the 3RR does not apply in this case. A very thorough discussion has recently taken place in regards to the sentences that you would like to tag. If you simply read the discussion you would see that your tags are unnecessary and only serve to call to question an issue that doesn't deserve such treatment.Torontokid2006 (talk) 07:38, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * In terms of breaking rules I'm pretty sure that you are edit warring by trying to make changes against consensus. You are not trying in any way to find agreement with the other editors. Torontokid2006 (talk) 07:39, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * As I am trying to maintain the quality of the article the 3RR does not apply in this case - this is nonsense. The rules apply to you William M. Connolley (talk) 07:48, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

A RFE has been filed
Here mark nutley (talk) 07:47, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Have you heard of Karma? Torontokid2006 (talk) 20:32, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Advice
There are a number of editors who have strong views about global warming and would like the articles in Wikipedia to reflect the scepticism that exists in the US media. One editor, User:Scibaby, has been blocked and continually reappears. The way to deal with them is to follow WP rules, especially WP:3RR and WP:AGF, and to use dispute resolution. See also Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern European mailing list for an example of some of the tactics that some editors use. TFD (talk) 19:24, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I was actually thinking the same thing! By the way, this is my 11th day as an editor! Yay me :) Torontokid2006 (talk) 19:58, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * You're contribs show your first edit as 19 Nov 2009. ;-) Anyway, more unsolicited advice: Any edit you make on the global warming page will have less than 50% support. Thus is the beast of contentious pages. It's best to suggest changes on the talk page first. Wait at least a week, then implement the changes if there is consensus to do so. -Atmoz (talk) 20:05, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * haha oh you're right. I guess a made a handful of edits back then. I forgot. I guess what I meant was, I've been a serious or regular editor for the last 11 days! (Notice my first discussion section dated May 24th :P)
 * Atmoz, i will take your great advice into serious consideration. Just so you know I do base my edits on reliable sources only and try my best to reach consensus. Time and time again people were complaining that the Corporate view was not included in the body of the article. And so I went along and included it. I did NOT do it just because.Torontokid2006 (talk) 20:12, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Torontokid, while your enthusiasm for sorting this out is great, it's best to take some time to think over what more experienced editors are telling you and be patient about the talk page discussions. I've not been involved, but think the problem is partly that the article is predominately about the science, and should really just deal very briefly with the political or economic aspects which are dealt with more fully in other related articles. Concise coverage is good, but excessive detail or misleading oversimplification are to be avoided. Anyway, you're discussing it with people who know much more than I do about the topic, and are worth listening to. . . dave souza, talk 21:55, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree that the article is mainly about the science. But, it's also pretty obvious that the article touches on a bit of the social reactions of the science as there is an entire section called "views on GW". I would find it a bit strange if there was no mention of special interest funding to climate deniers.

Talkback
+ 1 - Reconsider !  11:15, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Dubious edit summaries
I refer to : ''WMC - you removed all my edits and did not give an explanation in the summary nor talkpage. Can you explain why I was not offered the most basic etiquette of good faith?''. You are wrong: on the talk page I wrote ''TK: you've recently used your inexperience as an excuse for breaking 3RR. So, a consequence of that is that you should not be lecturing people about the spirit of wiki who have been around rather longer than you. I'm not sure what you mean by "the third para": if you mean, the oil companies bit in the lede, yes it has indeed been discussed and there is general consensus that it doesn't belong. If you mean There is no longer any scholarly debate then I see no consensus for its inclusion, and quite a few editors speaking out against it. In the case of a heavily edited article like GW, the spirit of wiki is to discussn controversial changes and get agreement first. WP:BRD is all very well - there is nothing wrong with WP:BOLD - but if you get reverted, you need to drop back to discuss William M. Connolley (talk) 20:26, 5 June 2010 (UTC)'' and then an entire section "some oil companies" explaining the problems with your edits and why I reverted.

I look forward to your apology for your erroneous edit summary William M. Connolley (talk) 15:38, 6 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Your heading for a discussion thread at Global warming does not conform with guidelines for talk pages. You should remove mention of criticism and naming of other editors.  TFD (talk) 16:52, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * TFD, are you referring to me? Torontokid2006 (talk) 18:33, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I would not address any other editor on your talk page. I was referring to this heading  TFD (talk) 18:53, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * That's strange. I was mentioned in a heading "recent edits by TK". Was that also not legitimate? Torontokid2006 (talk) 18:56, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * WMC - no discussion was made before you deleted the "oil industry reaction" subsection. Because of such disruptive behaviour I will have to challenge you until you put it back up or at least initiate a discussion for such drastic deleting.


 * Consequently, I am not sure what you are requesting an apology for. Your actions have been contrary to wiki-etiquette.Torontokid2006 (talk) 21:06, 6 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Lets take this slowly. (1) I removed your oil-industry stuff. (2) Then I wrote a section on the talk page explaining why. (3) Then you reverted with the edit summary I gave above: you removed all my edits and did not give an explanation. This is what I am asking for an apology for. I also note that even though you have been pointed at the discussion section multiple times you have made no comment there on the substance William M. Connolley (talk) 21:15, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * haha quit playing games sir. The section you created on the talk was NOT concerning the subsection. Rather is was referring to the 3rd paragraph in the lead. I'm surprised you don't remember your own work. Your section:
 * "Some oil companies
 * ''OK, continuing with another of MN's concerns, I too am not happy with:
 * Some oil companies have funded public relations campaigns and deeply flawed research studies [40] intended to discredit the global scientific consensus.[41] [42]''"
 * OK, I give up on you. Have fun William M. Connolley (talk) 21:44, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * You have been exposed sir. Torontokid2006 (talk) 21:50, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Warning
Torontokid2006, You are aware that the article on Global Warming is under probation since you have been to and commented on the Climate Change probation enforcement pages. In my opinion you are currently edit warring on that page and are very close to the point at which you will get blocked for it (by me or any other uninvolved admin). We have a lower tolerance for edit warring on articles within the Climate Change probation. Please stop. --BozMo talk 20:37, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your warning. For my knowledge could you please explain how my actions are edit warring? I legitimately feel that I am protecting the article from a certain bias. The source is reliable yet some editors want to call it to question. As well, wiki policy says to use "plain english" which I am trying to support so the article may be accessible to many people. Torontokid2006 (talk) 20:56, 6 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Everybody feels they are protecting the article from some certain bias. Everybody feels their version is clearer and better. Edit warring is persisting in "protecting" or "improving" the article your way without carrying agreement of other editors on your changes. --BozMo talk 21:34, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I object to your use of scare quotes for what most certainly seems like a genuine effort to improve an encyclopedic article. You might keep in mind that everyone here was once a beginner at WP, including yourself, and the learning curve is steep. AGF and please don't bite the newcomers. - PrBeacon (talk) 22:15, 16 June 2010 (UTC)


 * So how do you determine who is an edit warrior and who isn't if most people are trying to "protect" the article? As I've mentioned I believe I am in accordance with one fundamental policy at least (RS and verifiability). (Not sure if "use plain english" is a fundamental policy) So how do you determine that I am the edit warrior and not the other editor who is trying to revert using plain english in the 3rd paragraph of the lead? Torontokid2006 (talk) 21:43, 6 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I am new so this does help me learn. I appreciate the time in answering. Torontokid2006 (talk) 21:44, 6 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Simple determination of who is edit warring = the blocked editor. You are being advised not to continue your manner of editing, as it appears to be edit warring; therefore, your insistence in reverting the contributions of differing accounts is edit warring. If you do not change your style of interaction very quickly, you will be a blocked edit warrior. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:58, 6 June 2010 (UTC)


 * So that's it? If I'm blocked I'm the edit warrior? It is that subjective? I am not asking to be arrogant or annoying. I genuinely want to know how to avoid being blocked so I will know better how to navigate the stormy waters of GW editing. Torontokid2006 (talk) 01:36, 7 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Easy, get consensus for your actions. For example, your attempts to "dumb down" the language have not got support. Verbal chat  06:01, 7 June 2010 (UTC)


 * It's true that the plain english edits have been met with a negative consensus and I cease to push for them. However, my other edits (3rd paragraph of lead and "oil industry reaction" subsection) have not. Those edits received a mixed review which isnt a surprise on the GW article, especially when there are some editors who are willing to delete any mention of oil funding almost instantaneously and without discussion. Torontokid2006 (talk) 07:31, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Then start an WP:RFC (with a neutral and agreed wording) and ask a neutral admin to adjudicate the result, don't do it yourself. Also, have a look at WP:NOTVAND. "Mixed review" is not consensus, and see WP:BURDEN. Verbal chat  07:32, 7 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Hey Verbal, thanks a lot man. You didn't have to explain everything and post the links but you did (I'm guessing b/c you know I'm a noob and I need help!). I appreciate it greatly. I've learned a lot in the last 2 weeks and hopefully i don't get too discouraged and stay with this! Torontokid2006 (talk) 07:35, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Be aware that preparing an RFC and getting an agreed wording is difficult, and from the general discussion would seem to be a waste of time. A good first step in moving on would be to bury the hatchet with WMC - he's a good editor who is unfairly attacked very very often. Verbal chat  08:19, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I will not comment on his character as I have had unpleasant experiences with this editor :/ Torontokid2006 (talk) 02:57, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

RfE result
This is to make you aware of this decision, which you have probably seen coming. --BozMo talk 08:56, 8 June 2010 (UTC)