User talk:Prokaryotes: Difference between revisions

Hello, Prokaryotes, 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:

• 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

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 Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! Vsmith (talk) 23:06, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that Wikipedia takes copyright issues very seriously - I am going to remove the disputed link in the Essiac article one last time, and if you restore it, I will report the matter at WP:ANI, and ask that you be blocked from editing. I suggest you familiarise yourself with Wikipedia policy - particularly Wikipedia:Video links, and more generally Wikipedia:COPYLINK#Linking to copyrighted works. I would also suggest that you read WP:3RR policy regarding edit-warring. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:53, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quote: "In many cases, video is a primary source, in which case its value and reliability is obvious." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:External_links/YouTube Talk http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Essiac#External_links Prokaryotes (talk) 18:57, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Utterly irrelevant. The video hasn't been uploaded to YouTube by the copyright owner - and on that basis we cannot link to it, per policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:00, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And that applies to the second video you linked too. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:11, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently not a copyright issue. Prokaryotes (talk) 19:22, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you have evidence to back that up, I suggest you post it at WP:ANI - assuming you haven't been blocked first for edit-warring and/or violation of copyright policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:27, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to be broken WP:3RR and are at 5RR. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:13, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:18, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. See the block list for more blocks.

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.  Black Kite (talk) 19:32, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Prokaryotes (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Apparently the block reason is flawed since the judgement ignores the fact that the video link was updated, to a different movie. Prokaryotes (talk) 19:36, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Your request does not address the issue that resulted in your block. Re-read WP:Edit warring and WP:GAB. Tiderolls 19:39, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

• Note for future reviewing admins - 5 reverts - 1809, 1831, 1832, 1845 and 1913 UTC today. Black Kite (talk) 19:42, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently the content differs, but i just read 3RR and figure that 3RR doesn't account for updated information. Prokaryotes (talk) 19:46, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Any revert (or even partial revert) of an edit counts towards 3RR, as the policy page states. All of those 5 edits are simple reverts. Black Kite (talk) 19:49, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good to know. Though i read up on that page and it states a penalty of 24hrs initially, however as i understand my initial penalty is 72hrs. Prokaryotes (talk) 20:00, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Prokaryotes (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I understand that i broke the 3RR rule. I understand that i can no longer take part in improving Wikipedia. However, part of the 3RR were in response to users who might had a biased view of the situation, based on the initial framing of my edits. Alexbrn apparently posted without informing me about at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Some_cancer_.27cures.27 and framed me as a fringe - after that asking others to engage with my edits. On the contrary Alexbrn removed scientific literature from the wikipedia initially http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Soursop&diff=next&oldid=567940812 Prokaryotes (talk) 20:33, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Not an unblock request. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 23:07, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Due to your inappropriate use of your talk page while blocked, your ability to edit your talk page has been revoked. If you wish to appeal your block please use Wikipedia:Unblock Ticket Request System. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:20, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Inappropriate? Care to link to the related "rule"? Prokaryotes (talk) 00:29, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can you link me to the rule you apparently enforce? And somehow i can still edit my talk page? Prokaryotes (talk) 01:30, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Because the mediawiki software coughed. Now fixed. Also, when blocked, use of the talk page is supposed to be only for unblock requests - something that has been ridiculously flaunted here. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:10, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Soil, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Pedology (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 16:46, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your addition to Iron cycle has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text, or images borrowed from other websites, or printed material without a verifiable license; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

Your addition to Iron cycle on 13 May 2013 was a copy/paste from this page (note the image caption there states © 2010 Nature Education All rights reserved. I have removed the copied text from the article. Vsmith (talk) 00:11, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Vsmith. Notice that on the linked page you gave, the special Terms of USe especially states "Terms of Use: You may reproduce this material, without modifications, in print or electronic form for your personal, non-commercial purposes or for non-commercial use in an educational environment.". Hence Wikipdia meets the requirements as it is an educational environment and non-commercial. You find this information if you highlight/click the blue icon next to the copyright. Thus i ask you to revert your edit. Prokaryotes (talk) 04:46, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is non-free content and using it here is in violation of Nature's license (most obviously, by removing their copyright notice and being unable to guarantee the content will remain unmodified). Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 05:03, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As Alexbrn says, it is "non-free content" and copy/pasting it into a WP article is a copyright violation. Vsmith (talk) 16:16, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I contacted Nature Education, as assumed and as their Terms of Use state, can this image be used on WIkipedia, as long it is cited and attributed to Nature Education. Prokaryotes (talk) 17:30, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your addition to Vaccination has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text, or images borrowed from other websites, or printed material without a verifiable license; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. - 2/0 (cont.) 16:21, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvio of this. Copyvio of this. Close paraphrasing of [1]. Copying without attribution between articles breaks our license. Copyvio of this. If I have missed any content that you copied largely or entirely from any source, please find and fix it. Please read and understand our policy on copyright before making any further edits. - 2/0 (cont.) 17:17, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What you claim here as a copyright violation doesn't fit the description of "Unacceptable use: The following is a non-exhaustive list of examples where non-free content may not be used outside of the noted exceptions.Text: Unattributed pieces of text from a copyrighted source. Excessively long copyrighted excerpts." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NFC all the edits i made were 1 sentences. You further list a copy without attribution (a text i embedded from 1 wikipedia page to another), explain in example the attribution you claim is a copyright violation. Also for readability reason i added a section for this talk page entry. Prokaryotes (talk) 17:43, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Whenever you make an edit, you are asserting that the words are your own and that you are releasing the text under our exceptionally permissive license. This assertion is false when you copy a piece of text directly from a source without quotation marks or otherwise clearly noting that the text originates elsewhere. Directly placing another person's words in your mouth is never acceptable. - 2/0 (cont.) 17:51, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Further on examining your allegations of copyright infringement, this Talik isn't a copyright violation, see the related Terms. Annonaceae you link a blog, i don't know this source, it is not from me. PETM public domain material. Prokaryotes (talk) 18:07, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All additions i make are referenced with the url to the original content and are in agreement with the rights of that source. Prokaryotes (talk) 18:08, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Vaccination, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page CDC (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:56, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Prokaryotes. This message is being sent to inform you that a discussion is taking place at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

The relevant diff is here.

jps (talk) 17:33, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:78562X ... may not be quite in the spirit expected on WP. You might do better to consider the vaccination-related woes you have, and whether the views you aer putitng forward are encyclopedic. Midgley (talk) 18:19, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That account was created Feb 2011, does not appear to be blocked, and never edited vaccination or medical topics. Are you sure you're pointing to the correct account? II | (t - c) 23:04, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I read the discussion there and have blocked you for two weeks. You should use that time to read up on our policies and norms. I also enact the community ban; you may not edit any article related, however tenuously, to vaccination. You may edit talk pages and work on other scientific articles, but I caution you that if you continue to behave tendentiously, your next block would likely be indefinite. Your vaccination ban is indefinite; you are free to appeal it in one year from now. You should meanwhile work productively and harmoniously on articles as far away from vaccination as you can. Best of luck. --John (talk) 19:02, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed your last edit to Effects of climate change on humans: Difference between revisions which added a new section on Psychological impacts as the edit was a direct cut-n-paste copyright violation from the abstract of the source modified into list format. It seems that your disregard or inability to comprehend WP:Copyvio would be reason for a block. However, as I note you have already been blocked for another reason, I will leave this here for you to contemplate. Any further copyright violations following your return will most likely result in an indefinite block. Vsmith (talk) 21:29, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Vsmith, i posted here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Help_desk#Keywords_of_science_studies which pointed me to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Inline_citation which lists ref, though i asked the user over there if my current version were ok without quotation, since it is mostly scientific keywords and quotation would change the 3 line readability as i understand, and rewording would change the scientific findings of that study. So im not sure how i would incorporate this particular part. Still waiting for an answer on that. Prokaryotes (talk) 21:45, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise it appears as quotation would legitimate this content, based on the reply at the HelpDesk i got, maybe you can do this Vsmith (talk)? Prokaryotes (talk) 22:27, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good that you were asking, but perhaps you should have asked first if you were uncertain. Simple rule: don't copy and paste. But if you feel you must, then quote.

If the only thing added were the three words in list form ... maybe(?), but you also copied and pasted their parenthetical explanations - a definite violation. Vsmith (talk) 22:41, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For clarification, my original version including the study quote is used in the article with the addition of the publisher and author names. Prokaryotes (talk) 23:50, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I saw your post on your user page, and indef blocked your alt account, as it read to me as though you might be abandoning this account for the other account, and that would be block evasion. If you abandoned that account for this account, you need to request a history merge, or list that account as a sock, and only use it for allowed purposes - ie, not when this account is blocked. Anyway, in order to get more eyes on the subject, I listed it at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Prokaryotes - I will be happy to copy any statement you wish there, just type it here. Cheers, KillerChihuahua 22:55, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Climate state, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Biotic and Hothouse (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:19, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your efforts on various articles including climate sensitivity, runaway climate change, climate state, and more ... see 141.218.35.31 (talk) 02:53, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Just made a cup of Sencha :) Prokaryotes (talk) 03:01, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Some of this edit appears to be copy pasted from here and here. Content at those sites seems to be copyrighted. Please explain. If I'm mistaken, please accept my apologies. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:09, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The content in question is released under CC-BY 3.0, which you can check when you visit the referenced source http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/371/2001/20120294 Prokaryotes (talk) 06:12, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A thousand pardons. Actually, I've stupidly put the same link twice. I need sleep. Now that I look, there are half a dozen references cited for the content you added. I just see so much that googles. Is all of it from the Royal Society? Here's an example:

• Your addition: "...The human body generates about 100 W of metabolic heat that must be carried away to maintain a core body temperature near 37°C, which implies that sustained..."
• Source: "...The human body generates about 100 W of metabolic heat that must be carried away to maintain a core body temperature near 37°C, which implies that sustained..."

Best wishes, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:25, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Anna, we currently try to improve the article (see talk page) for now this part is 90% copy/pasted from the Royal Society link. Because this is a very delicate subject where small changes can make a huge difference and it is well written. Though i or someone else might rewrite it later to make it more compact. Cheers Prokaryotes (talk) 06:29, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I think I understand. Are you sure it's 90%? I mean, I see around 6 different references you added, so I can't quite understand that. And what about the above example? Did that originate at the Royal Society or did you copy paste it from a copyrighted source? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:34, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All originates from the RS link and is referenced at that site, i manually added the references. Prokaryotes (talk) 06:37, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks. Sorry to have bothered you. It just seemed odd to cite sources that originate at the RS instead of citing RS directly. Thanks for your patience. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:50, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
2. With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) 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 necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 09:17, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Canfield ocean (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Peter Ward

Runaway climate change (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to CH4

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:51, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to IPCC Fifth Assessment Report may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• author = Jeff Nesbit| url =http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/at-the-edge/2013/09/24/settled-science]}}</ref>

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 16:10, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work on improving this article. I was going through the WP:TAFI articles for the week and I noticed your additions. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 13:13, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, maybe i add more later. Prokaryotes (talk) 15:27, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Prokaryotes, which video are you referring to? Thanks, Originalwana (talk) 12:37, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

21st Century Temperature and Precipitation Scenarios.ogg Also could you reference the given RCP shown (i.e. CO2 concentrations reaching 421 ppm (RCP2.6), 538 ppm (RCP4.5), 670 ppm (RCP6.0), and 936 ppm (RCP 8.5) by the year 2100)? Thanks. NASA gov isn't available rightnow but the vid release link is http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-nI8MByIL8, though not stating the RCP :( Prokaryotes (talk) 12:51, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

re your comment at AFD, you would probably start at Global warming and if you read the whole thing you would see the specific section Global_warming#Discussion_by_the_public_and_in_popular_media and you'd follow the links in the hatnote to the two main articles on that subject NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:13, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you NewsAndEventsGuy for pointing that out. I even remember to read on it on Wikipedia at some point probably in that article. Prokaryotes (talk) 08:17, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Polar vortex page, your edit caused a DOI error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:23, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Prokaryotes, would you like me to semiprotect your userpage so IPs can't edit it? Bishonen | talk 18:02, 8 January 2014 (UTC).[reply]

That'd be great. Thanks. Prokaryotes (talk) 03:53, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Bishonen | talk 07:43, 9 January 2014 (UTC).[reply]

I've been following this train wreck a bit at ANI and RSN and seen MMfA discussed multiple times at RSN. You mention sources using MMfA. Any examples off the top of your head that would be useful at RSN? Dougweller (talk) 06:48, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

These turn up with a quick google http://abcnews.go.com/topics/news/reporters/media-matters.htm and http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tag/media-matters-for-america Also an interesting read http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Media_Matters_for_America

MMfA is kind of special since they create content based on other content, evaluating content. Prokaryotes (talk) 07:08, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. There's a big effort at RSN to keep MMfA out of the Fox News article - it's not an RS, it isn't a significant opinion (put mainly as a 'weight' issue), we have better sources so shouldn't use MMfA, etc. I can understand the political opposition to using it, but I can't get my head around this - maybe I'm just blind in this case. Dougweller (talk) 10:57, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It would be nice if you could let me know when the next discussion is up. I'm interested to read the arguments. Prokaryotes (talk) 11:14, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Arctic sea ice decline (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Mercury

Tropospheric ozone (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Mercury

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:04, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Read page 8.3.5 [2]. Here's some handy dandy qquotes that dispute listing "Land Use Change" as a primary driver of globalwarming in AR5 (read the whole chapter because it acknowledges all contributions to climate change.) "Numerical climate experiments demonstrate that the impact of land use on climate is much more complex than just the RF. "

"A comparison of the impact of land use change according to seven climate models showed a wide range of results (Pitman et al., 2009), partly due to difference in the implementation of land cover change, but mostly due to different assumptions on ecosystem albedo, plant phenology and evapotranspiration. There is no agreement on the sign of the temperature change induced by anthropogenic land use change. It is very likely that land use change led to an increase of the Earth albedo with a RF of –0.15 ± 0.10 W m–2 , but a net cooling of the surface — accounting for processes that are not limited to the albedo — is about as likely as not."

that's what IPCC AR5 says. So why do you think adding this (or removing the claim that Land use Change is a major driver of global warming) is somehow disruptive? I proposed adding concrete production because that is real. It's sourced in AR5. The SPM only states CO2 radiative forcing, but WP synthesizes that into temperature and makes a major gaffe by implying Anthropenic Land Use changes are a major component to global warming when AR5 explicitly says they don't know (50/50 chance of being net neg or positive). Conflating CO2 forcings with temperature misses the entire point of section 8.3 where the net temperature affect is "complex." AR5 cites the actual work to support it's conclusions and the main differnece between AR4 and AR5 w.r.t. land use is an increasing confidence in albedo changes (it's also in that report). --DHeyward (talk) 16:44, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can we please wait till the final version is released - this is the general notion which has been guided the wikipedia edits in recent month, when it comes to AR5 details. See for instance my conversation with Connolley at climate sensitivity. Prokaryotes (talk) 17:19, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mind waiting for AR5 final technical report. All of the land use changes are since AR4 and the research behind it is recent but widely accepted (well widely accepted as no longer consensus that land use is a major climate driver). I simply wanted to leave the AR4 stuff and just remove the land use change reference since we know it's coming from the cited papers (in that AR5 working is a number of cited research with varying estimates. AR5 significantly changed it's stance on surface albedo primarily through satellite data and is in the document when the upped the confidence and ranges. Quoting the AR5 SPM, though, is misleading as the political bodies cherrypicked disconnected pieces to infer a connection that the scientists were not willing to make (GW from WMGHGs to forcings from CO2 from fossil fuels/concrete/land use to "major contributors"). This following statement isn't even supported by the SPM "Affirming these findings in 2013, IPCC says that the largest driver of global warming is carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from fossil fuel combustion, cement production, and land use changes such as deforestation." The SPM only deals with Well-mixed Green House Gas (WMGHG) forcings when talking about CO2, not "global warming." The wordsmithing is torturous because, as you have seen, people plainly infer "WMGHG forcings" with total temperature increase which is inherently incorrect (it's like saying it's dark all the time by dismissing daytime). The SPM, contrary to that statement sourced to it, makes no inference about the largest driver of global warming being land use changes. They are quite silent on connecting warming to land use changes because it is obviously not supported so they stick with forcings. Of the observed 0.8C warming, WMGHG forcings alone would be about 1.3C, with the difference attributed to a number of sink factors such as deep ocean warming, surface albedo, aerosols, clouds, etc. Basically anything with low confidence is a possibility. --DHeyward (talk) 17:57, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, some text about feedbacks was taken out ~2 years ago, due to WP:LEADLENGTH. I was the author and I was at first annoyed, now I think it imperative to do lead triage and concur that compared to what else we might say, feedbacks should get no more than a phrase in the lead, if that. We haven't said anything, really, about the cost of each year's delay or the notion of stranded carbon assets, both very big deals. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:47, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Once the final summary is out, we have to update various wikipedia pages, such as climate sensitivity. Let's compile the main findings and add it after release where required. Prokaryotes (talk) 17:23, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Would recommend you join the discussion on the talk page. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 10:50, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:MEDRS please use secondary sources such as review articles. Conference abstracts are not sufficient sources. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 13:23, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's a journal, however i updated the link to a review article. Prokaryotes (talk) 13:29, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We have about 10,000 disease related articles and they all more or less follow the layout suggested at WP:MEDMOS. Not sure why you are moving the sections out of order? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 13:44, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, thanks for pointing me to this guideline. My impression however has been that history is always among the top sections. Sigh, if you feel the new section structure is bad, let me know and i revert this. Im back later today. Prokaryotes (talk) 13:50, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I just think it would be nicer to start that disease article with the history, rather than straight symptoms. Prokaryotes (talk) 13:52, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not attack other editors, as you did on WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. The unsubstantiated allegation of vandalism, in a content dispute, is a strong personal attack, and may result in a boomerang block. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:30, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So, you are suggesting the user is not removing valid content from the Wikipedia and adding or changing valid content with meaningless or more confusing content instead? Even the other guy who responded noted "I don't always understand or agree with Chjoaygame's edits", doesn't that ring a bell? My impression is you saw the section title and then somehow decided this is a content dispute without further investigating. That user is re-writting regularly the fundamental definitions of Physics in his own broken English words, hence why i also concluded "Incompetence". This is not a content dispute per se, and if there are more subtle ways of classification in regards to content removal/addition/alteration, then please point me to the relevant Wikipedia guideline, thanks. Prokaryotes (talk) 14:13, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You either completely misread and misunderstood my comments, or you completely failed, in your WP:ANI post, to explain why the content of your post merited the section heading. What I saw, and see, is a content dispute. You then reported it to WP:ANI using "Vandalism" in the section heading, but your description is of a good-faith content dispute. Perhaps you think that incompetent writing is a form of vandalism, and so thought that was a proper section heading. Incompetence, even if documented as incompetence, is not vandalism. If you really think that there is a competence issue, please present it as a competence issue; you will destroy your own credibility if you use the heading of "vandalism". What will you then do if a sockpuppet of Willy on Wheels shows up, or an IP address replaces physics text with obscenities? Who will believe you then? You state: "You saw the section title and then somehow decided this is a content dispute without further investigation." No. I saw the section title, and then saw that nothing in the section substantiated the charge of vandalism, and that there was a content dispute. Do not idly use the section heading of "vandalism" in order to get attention to your complaint. You may have other valid issues, but you started off poorly by using an inflammatory section heading that was not substantiated. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:03, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My intend wasn't to present a term which holds so much weight, when i picked the headline. It was at that moment the best thing i could come up with when reporting the issue, since it involves continued content removal and change. The noticeboard reads: "Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content, in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia.". And it isn't clear if the user attempts are deliberate. Hence, why i offered a conclusion which offers more possibilities. My intention was to bring attention to the user edits and i hope a person with more knowledge in the particular field could have a look, as i understand this hasn't be the case so far. Prokaryotes (talk) 20:30, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That answers that. You failed to assume good faith. You apparently assumed that the removal of content was done deliberately to compromise the encyclopedia. If you didn't have specific reason to assume bad faith, you should have assumed good faith. You should have assumed that this was a content dispute, which even the critics of the other editor have said. Even if the removal of content due to a dispute over sourcing or reliability was questionable, you should have assumed good faith, rather than labeling it as vandalism. Assuming good faith does not mean agreeing that the edits (removal of content in a content dispute) were valid; it only means assuming that the other editor had a reason for the removal that should have been discussed on the talk page, rather than screaming "vandalism". Do you understand now? Whether or not you intended to use a term that holds so much weight, you did use a term that holds so much weight, and using it amounted to an assumption of bad faith. Do you understand now? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:31, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Robert, i understand it now. Do you have any suggestion how to proceed next? Thanks. Prokaryotes (talk) 16:53, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

First, please do not expect that editors will always respond immediately, and do not annoy them by expressing your annoyance at the lack of response on their talk pages. Second, resolve content disputes by discussion on article talk pages or by WP:DRN before going to WP:ANI. I have not had time to research the physics issues, but I would suggest that WP:DRN would be where to start. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:34, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok good and thanks Robert for the tips, will look into this later again. Prokaryotes (talk) 01:36, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Dissipation, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page William Thomson (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:59, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A collection for later usage

Laws of thermodynamics: Difference between revisions https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Laws_of_thermodynamics&diff=593680535&oldid=593647138 (no cites, change of words are not considered an improvement)

Thermodynamic process: Difference between revisions https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Thermodynamic_process&diff=prev&oldid=600255556 (old stuff, errors such as missing words and double content, badly cited)

Heat: Difference between revisions https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Heat&diff=600295343&oldid=600086212 (no cite, wrong edit summary, link to old stuff - includes issues)

Temperature: Difference between revisions https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Temperature&diff=600108956&oldid=600055728 ( Not redundant, new edits are worse.)

Internal energy: Difference between revisions https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Internal_energy&diff=598850502&oldid=596106248 (Removal of links and keywords and key content, bad grammar: no real sentences)

Dissipation (thermodynamics): Difference between revisions https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dissipation_%28thermodynamics%29&diff=598046377&oldid=597982372 (Removal of keywords, edits are not considered an improvement when it comes to easy understandable use of words)

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Plasma (physics) page, your edit caused an unnamed parameter error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:33, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Heat transfer, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Thermal diffusion (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:56, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I wish to apologize for tagging your page with an "unconstructive edits" template. You have pointed out that the problems with the article pre-dated your edits. On closer observation, I see that you have a point. It will take some time, but I propose to go through the article checking all the sources. I think that the "Circles of Sustainability" graphic and claims are not supported by the literature. I note that you have intimated as much yourself. Would you be willing to assist with this? Sunray (talk) 18:44, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good and let me know what you need. Prokaryotes (talk) 18:52, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Want to take issue with the way you've messed up the Sustainocene article with your non-referenced point of view that it is about sustainable development and not to do with artificial photosynthesis. You have deleted a lot of references that speciifically discuss the Sustainocene in the context of artificial photosynthesis and replaced them with references which don't even mention the word 'Sustainocene' but instead discuss sustainable development as if that was the same thing.NimbusWeb (talk) 21:28, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello NimbusWeb, the right place to discuss the edits is the article talk page. Prokaryotes (talk) 22:11, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is to try an reduce personal animosity in our ongoing discussions. My aim is to get accurate properly referenced material on new areas into wikipedia. I hope that is yours also. If it is hopefully we can work together.NimbusWeb (talk) 02:25, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why you resist since i included the study and link to AP. btw

Look at that, "In May 2012, Sun Catalytix, the startup based on Nocera's research, stated that it will not be scaling up the prototype as the device offers few savings over other ways to make hydrogen from sunlight" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_photosynthesis#History Prokaryotes (talk) 02:28, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I understand what Prof. Faunce and Prof Nocera are doing its a public policy concept they are developing. The idea is to get policy makers to plan in terms of long-term occupation of the earth. Whether the AP technology is realisable now is new research, these scholars are making claims about what will happen when it is developed. The Sustainocene article is about developing a public policy concept that focuses on the environment and its sustainability on the back of a technology that facilitates humans not having to exploit nature. Your edits went very far from that. I'm willing to modify--but what I was hoping from you were comments about specific changes not the mass deletions. Remember-- you came into that article and did all those changes without posting it on the talk page first. Can't your compromise a little?NimbusWeb (talk) 02:37, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]