User talk:Nigelj/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• How to edit a page
• Editing tutorial
• Picture tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Naming conventions
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome! -- Graham ☺ | Talk 12:28, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

thanks

for moving it to e.boat

UTF-8

It turns out you're right. According to the specification, encoding="UTF-8" is the appropriate thing to put in the XML prolog, not encoding="utf-8". I will make this correction to the other sample document on the Cascading Style Sheets page shortly.

Wildman7856

I am so sorry. I didnt know about how much time it took you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wildman7856 (talk • contribs) 15 December 2006

Virtual Ground

Partial-discussion moved to User Talk:Zen-in to keep it all in one place for clarity.

SVG does'nt look nice

Hello, Nigelj. You have new messages at Talk:Scalable_Vector_Graphics#SVG_does.27nt_look_nice.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Negligible

Yes, interesting idea to have this page so that others can be linked to it. It may need expanding tho' to cover all possible uses of the term 'negligible'. Perhaps the page should have been called 'Negligibilty' but thats a bit of a mouthful!!. :-) Light current 13:16, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes I understand. But 'negligibility' can be redirected to 'negligible' can it not? Light current 18:58, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

WWW

I'll comment on the WWW definition on that talk page. Jeremy J. Shapiro 19:50, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Breidbart quote in Internet

Nigel, I've cleaned up the punctuation to fix my transcription error. The quote does actually make sense: in fact, it's actually a reasonably succinct and accurate description of what the Internet is: in plain-ish English, it means "the largest group of computers that can all both successfully send IP packets to, and receive IP packets from, every other computer in that group". Seth Breidbart could have left out the "reflexive, transitive, symmetric closure" bit, since that's implied by "equivalence class", and simply said: "[the Internet is] the largest equivalence class of the binary relation 'can be reached by an IP packet from'", but it wouldn't have been nearly as funny. -- The Anome 09:37, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

stay mouse

I want to commend you on your excellent edits to Stay mouse; what was once incomprehensible and ineffective is now an interesting and valuable reference work. Great job! -- Rmrfstar 22:38, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Electric boat pollution

What am I to do regarding the discussion Talk:Electric boat and reversions happening at Electric boat? There doesn't seem to be much chance of convincing this person that the boat is non-polluting. I'm tempted to revert the article and reply to the latest comment pointing out a number of non-polluting electricity sources, but I'm sure that it would not do any good. Perhaps it would be best to simply let this cool off and revert it next week. What do you think? --D0li0 09:02, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Ajax (programming) / pronunciation

Hi. I agree to leave your edition while we discuss the factuality of pronunciation "A-JAX". Would you be so kind as to start a discussion concerning this on the talk page? -- Kirils 22:38, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

re: Template:Free software

Well, I did notice that it was being used statically in quite a few articles, so I thought it'd be good to use it again. It'd be nice to get any help possible, sure. Do you have any suggestions for where to put it other than articles that focus on something involving free software? -Matt 00:05, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

RE: Dark web

The main article that I am basing my edit off of is "[1]", in which "dark web" and "dark web space" refer to hosts that are intentionally hidden, and talks of them specifically launching SMTP and other DoS attacks (not limited to what is correctly called "the web"); I have seen this elsewhere too, if you like I can try to find more references for it. I understand that it is a misnomer, but it is how the term is commonly used. If you feel that it is commonly used also to refer to the deep web, then we should make it into a disambiguation page. --DDG 22:14, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Rewriting World Wide Web

I just created a major rewrite proposal for the World Wide Web article which is currently a shameful mess. As you recently contributed to the debate, I'd like to invite you to join our efforts. This article needs some love: come and submit your ideas! -- JFG 05:01, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Sunday Times Golden Globe Race

Hi, I thought you might be interested to know that the Sunday Times Golden Globe Race article is up for FAC. If you like, I'd welcome your comments on the FAC review page. — Johan the Ghost _seance 16:52, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations! You made my Quote of the Week

Your edit summary from Masturbation, "A story about Jim Morrison getting drunk is not what 'historic chronicles' normally refers to", has made my duo quote of the week! Happy editing. Teke 04:22, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

XPath

Hi Nigelj, you rolled back an edit I made to XPath. Sorry for not leaving a comment but the example //a[@href='help.php'][../div/@class='header']/@target is wrong. The part ../div of the second predicate specifies the div children of the parent (i.e. the a element's siblings) whereas the explanation speaks of a div parent. The expression can be fixed by replacing this bit with parent::div i.e. changing the expression to //a[@href='help.php'][parent::div/@class='header']/@target. Hwiechers 20:00, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi Hwiechers, you're absolutely right! That's what I get for not testing code! What it turns out that I meant was //a[@href='help.php'][../../div/@class='header']/@target. However what you suggest works just as well except that it mixes the full and abreviated syntaxes, although there's no rule against that. I've corrected the page. Thanks for your help and well spotted! --Nigelj 21:48, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

The brief definition of the Internet

hi Nigelj,

you removed the brief definition i added and mentioned that it was repetitive, though i didnt actually see the place of repetition. of course, the complete explanation of this concept contains the meaning of "network of networks" but does not give a clear outline. see here:

"The Internet .... is the .... interconnected computer networks that .... (IP). It consists of millions .... networks, which .... of the World Wide Web."

70 words! a reader has to extract the core meaning, "network of networks", him/herself after reading the 70 words. why dont we just give it out directly?

how about this? to give the brief definition at first, then expand it to the above complete definition? to make it smooth and integrated.

regards,

--bbao 11:39, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi Bbao

The repetitions I spoke of were the existing phrases. "system of interconnected computer networks" and, in the other paragraph, "collection of interconnected computer networks". What I liked about those two phrases was the way that the words can easily be contracted from interconnected networks to inter-net, showing the origin of the word (maybe via internetworked networks, but I don't imagine anyone really cares about that).

I'm not 100% convinced that network of networks is the best introductory phrase, as it conjures for me an image of separate, island networks with single links joining them up to their neighbours. I think the real internet is much more intertwingled than that with dozens of routes from any host to any other - hence the fault tolerance.

What do you think? Shall we take this discussion to the Internet Talk page to see what others think? Apart from that niggle in my mind, I think it reads fine as it is now, after your recent edit. --Nigelj 18:29, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Nuclear power as a renewable energy source

You've blanked the Nuclear power section again. Please revert yourself. — Omegatron 01:18, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Omegatron. Please don't be so rude. Have a look at the page history[2][3] No-one has blanked anything. --Nigelj 19:12, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

SVG and Firefox 2

I took your statement about my SVG Firefox 2 edit to offence, I merely noted that my Firefox 2 said it didn't have SVG support whenever I tried to view SVG. I had thought it in the best sake of accuracy to see to it that the article be accurate, I wasnt aware that my SVG problem was localized. Also, my handle is not zoetronic! Zeotronic 01:13, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Your edits to World Wide Web

Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia, Nigelj! However, your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove spam from Wikipedia. If you were trying to insert a good link, please accept my creator's apologies, and try to reinsert the link again. If your link was genuine spam, please note that inserting spam into Wikipedia is against policy. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! Shadowbot 19:05, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid, Shadowbot, that you were completely wrong in this case - there was no spam or even an external link involved. Please ask your owner to apply squirts of WD40 to all the right places in your brain :-) --Nigelj 20:45, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Alphabet

Please take a look at abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz, some one has screwed it up, and can you also tell me how they edited up there.--Wildman7856 21:12, 18 December 2006 (UTC)WildMan7856

Hi. I can't see a problem - it's just a redirect page. It got vandalised yesterday and someone already fixed it. Redirect pages can get confusing, because sometimes you get to follow the redirection, and only occasionally do you get to see it, its Talk and its History. Follow your own link above, then click on the first 'abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz' link you see on that page to see the redirect page itself. Then you can get to its Edit, Talk and History views. --Nigelj 14:32, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Morse code example

this seems like it would be better suited to be placed in the Q code and Morse Code Abbreviations article since that is really what is being demo'd

Presumably you are going to place it there then, rather than just going around deleting other people's careful, relevant and useful work? --Nigelj 18:55, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

The examples are not even using Morse Code. They are just clear examples of Q Code. Show me how that is relevant information to the Morse Code article. The examples were long, looked horrible and bring nothing to the article. I'll move your precious examples to their respective pages, but not right away. Later tonight, perhaps. You are more than welcome to. PMHauge 19:20, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay, but this wasn't really a priority for me (or anyone else, it would seem). I've moved the information over to both the Prosigns for Morse Code and Morse Code Abbreviations articles. PMHauge 06:49, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks very much - it looks great. Well done. --Nigelj 19:56, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Foreskin restoration

Regarding your comment here. It is actually true and related techniques are commonly used in the treatment of burn victims. The reason this can work is that skin cells in the multi-layered Stratum spinosum, like in the deeper Stratum germinativum are capable of mitosis. All traditional skin growth stimulating techniques rely on the stimulation of mitosis in either of these two proliferative skin layers. Another (naturally occurring) example is the build-up of skin in pregnant women or people who get fat. -- I won't argue inclusion into the battlefield, but trust me, it's in fact possible and widely practiced. 87.78.176.10 18:32, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Compact Flourescent Lamps

Are you perchance an environmentalist [spits]? Why have you removed all the disadvantages from the above reference article?. You have succeeded in restoring much that is inaccurate and dowright lies. This is what environmentalists do to push what is basically a political agenda. They don't like people finding out that what they push is rarely the whole picture.

For example, no CFL has a guaranteed life of 8000 hours. No CFL in normal use comes anywhere close. In real usage, most rarely last longer than a normal bulb.

Also: they do not contain 1/5 of the mercury of a watch battery. Watch batteries have been mercury free since at least the beginning of the century. CFLs are most definitely not mercury free.

If you must correct articles, then at least don't include total bollocks.

20.133.0.14 14:09, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

My detailed response to this tiresome attack is on the relevant talk page --Nigelj 20:22, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

News Links on Renewable Energy

Hi Nigel. You reverted my removal of 3 external links to news articles on the Renewable Energy page and said "News links are relevant because significant renewable energy propjects are newsworthy." However, if this were the criteria for inclusion of external links, then we are going to have hundreds of external links to news stories about significant renewable energy projects. Why not just include a link to a site which provides both current and archives of renewable energy news such as Renewable Energy News Also, why should these 3 news articles appear first before the link to the National Renewable Energy Lab? Surely, a news article no matter how newsworthy should bump the National Renewable Energy Lab. This was the secondary reason I removed these links since they appear to be spam links.--67.176.26.111 20:48, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

See talk page of relevant article --Nigelj 22:12, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Use preview if you want to see references. Don't clutter up the page for the rest of us. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.91.198.97 (talk) 00:28, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

References and citations are essential to Wikipedia - they do not 'clutter up the pages'. Why not create an account, read some of the policy guidelines and get involved? --Nigelj 19:27, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

lifespan

yep, you're right, lifespan on LEDs is relevant, thanks for persisting. reg. Mion 13:41, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!

Just wanted to compliment you, Nigel, on your recent work on the lead section of the photovoltaics article. Much appreciated. -- Johnfos 10:13, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

css links

Answered. --Yurik 18:20, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Please put my formatting back - I have committed the change on the servers, and it will become available shortly. --Yurik 22:43, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

The way I understand Wikipedia, if you want to change an article, you can. You don't instruct others to make your changes for you. If other users don't approve of your changes, they may revert or alter them. But you still don't get to start giving them orders. --Nigelj 17:25, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Touchy... Never gave any orders - just politely asked to undo what you have done and stated my reasons. Putting them back would be a revert war - not a way to go. --Yurik 08:13, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Good Article candidate?

I'm wondering about doing some work on Renewable energy to try to bring it up to GA status. I think the main thing needed, apart from a general cleanup, is to add some more references and/or delete a few short unsourced paragraphs. Please let me know if you have any interest in helping with this. -- Johnfos 04:59, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Knot (speed)

I wanted to draw your attention to the comment I have just placed at Talk:Knot (speed) and to suggest here, too, that you create a great, authoritative article on theoretical hull displacement speeds.

I also wanted to ask you not to resort to name calling when making comments. My objectives are transparent. They are to create a better Wikipedia in every article I touch. Sometimes that does mean removal of segments that have no place in the article in question.

In this case, while the segment itself is good, it is in the wrong article. But referring to the new article from the old is the right way to go. Fiddle Faddle 19:18, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I didn't call anyone by any 'name'?! But equally, I have to tell I'm not here to take orders: If you're so sure what is the "way to go", then do it - edit the page, create the article you want etc. Don't make up your mind what's needed, irritate me by deleting my work, then tell me to get on and implement your plan for you. --Nigelj 23:06, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

It was both name calling and derogatory. You said "If it doesn't suit an extreme-expert's most pedantic sensibilities." I found it offensive, thus I have drawn it to your attention.

With some small research on your part you would have found the article Hull speed. I have added your table to it. I've added that to the See Also section, where it had previously escaped notice. Please do read about ownership of work on wikipedia. This is, once submitted "our" work. The bottom of the edit screen has the notice "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed for profit by others, do not submit it." I simply suggested to you a better idea (my opinion) a different idea (presumably your opinion). Note that there was nothing ordering you to do anything. I can't order you, no-one can order you. People may suggest, people may edit. Fiddle Faddle 08:49, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Internet

The Internet article received heavy editing today by unregistered users, which I noticed at WikiRage.com. The article may benefit from a good review. According to Wikipedia Page History Statistics, you are one of the top contributors to that page. If you have the time, would you please read over the article and make any necessary changes. Thanks. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 07:07, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up, Jreferee. I found only one small error that had not been reverted. That's neat technology that you used - thanks for the links :-) --Nigelj 19:40, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Web 2.0, IMHO full of buzzwords, etc.

In case you might be interested in what's going on at Web 2.0, I just added the Buzzword tag to that article, along with a plea on the Talk page to also weed out jargon, weasel wording, marketese, and plain old bullshit. -- 201.19.77.39 21:57, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I've had a look, and will keep an eye on it for a while again. --Nigelj 14:47, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Amateur radio

Hi Nigel. The article lead parapgraoh really is an attempt to give a very general overview of ham radio, and frame it in an international sense. I don't think we're trying to exclude all the various interests and contributions of hams. But I'm sure you realize that if the lead sentence were to include every significant thing about ham radio and radio hams, it would be pages long. So the job is to have a description one might find in the opening paragraph of a book meant to introduce the subject to laymen in a way they can understand. And you're right, I should have done a little explaining here on the Talk page rather than try and fit it into an abrupt edit summary. Let us know what you think belongs in the opening sentence, and hopefully give a reference work that describes ham radio (as an introduction to the subject) in those terms. -LuckyLouie (talk) 22:54, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Apologizes, if it is due

Things got pretty heated up at the article and if I ever were rude, please be assured that it wasn't intentional, just that the stress got to me. I apologize for the situations, if there were any. No hard feelings, right? --soum ^talk 05:21, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

AGF

In a similar vein please assume good faith before accusing another editor of not. See this discussion regarding the user who changed support to enforcement Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#.7B.7Buser.7CZaphraud.7D.7D_recent_edits. Immediately prior to this he was soapboxing on several articles, including that article to change digital rights management to digital restrictions management.--Crossmr (talk) 01:29, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

As for googling things: [4], [5], [6], [7]. Try googling with quotes next time. DRM Enforcement gets around 2000 hits, and drm support gets around 87,000 hits.--Crossmr (talk) 01:32, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

XPath error I introduced?

What was the issue with the correction I made? Is the forward slash actually required? I never use the forward slash after a open-bracket in XPath, it seems to break the path, at least when I use the JDOM and Dom4J libraries. - Poobslag (talk) 20:37, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I have moved this discussion to the XPath talk page so that other editors can review the points made as well. --Nigelj (talk) 22:28, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

SVG Article Notes

Hi Nigel,

There are a very few articles on Wipedia I really care about, and SVG is one of them. You have commented and actually worked that article and I appreciate it. I'm just looking for allies. The article needs to get across that SVG is a technology that the most insightful, non-commercial, public-interest oriented internet experts (like Berners-Lee) support, but no significant commercial enterprise will. This odd combination of cross-purposes is a key for ordinary people to understand the dynamics of corporate profit, technology visionaries, and the web alignments that situation spawns. Please respond if you are willing to work with me on adjusting and then defending the treatment of these issues in the article. Thanks. KTyson (talk) 14:52, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi KTyson. I totally agree that SVG is an excellent thing, and has had a very poor uptake and a limited public profile. I've tried to ensure that its conceptual simplicity as a markup language, effectiveness in decent browsers, and the awfulness of IE's lack of support, along with the shaky status of Adobe's plugin, all remain clearly stated in the article (although my simple SVG example hasn't survived others' editing). I've also tried to tackle the same issue from the other direction, insisting for example on some SVG coverage as a criticism under Microsoft Silverlight#Relationship to existing Web standards. I continue to monitor the artcle, and to do what I can - I'll certainly look out for your work, support you, and help build on what you're doing wherever I can. Thanks for making contact. --Nigelj (talk) 16:25, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Mathematical constants (Boolean_datatype)

I am just starting out on Wikipedia and I am indeed getting a bit bolder! So please excuse me if I am wrong but I was told, be bold!

I think it is pretty important to mention this. In real life they come up a lot, someone will write 3.1415967 even if M_PI exists (and indeed it is hard-coded on the processor). I worked with radarsystems where Pi was kinda 1 or 2 and you had to jump through hoops to do simple addition, but if you wanted an arctangent, it was like shit off a shovel. I think it should be briefly mentioned. I tried to make it as brief as I could.

I don't think it should be slapped or encouraged, NPOV. But should be mentioned. Any profesional programmer will see them, and recognize them.

SimonTrew (talk) 19:24, 24 February 2009 (

Nigel while I respect your good intentions, and some of your edits have been good, I think you are getting close to vandalism. 20:24, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

While you were typing that, I was working on that section of Magic number (programming). I remember helping on that section some years ago, when we all had our thinking caps on, thinking back to code we'd worked on and trying to make up good and bad examples. In those years though, Wikipedia has changed. We don't make up sections based on our experiences any more (however broad they may be), because that's original research. We have to find citable sources and references now for every assertion (well every one that's in the least bit disputable, anyway). Luckily I have just been reading a new book out called 'Clean Code' that actually discusses two 'smells' originating in the use of magic numbers in code.

So I took out everything disputable that isn't in this, or one of the other cited references, added some new stuff that is in the book (e.g. strings as magic values) and submitted. I know citing a book is a pain for everyone else, because you can't just click and cross-check what I was looking at, but then blogs are not considered WP:RELIABLE either, and this kind of stuff isn't often published in the New York Times! So what can you do?

If you can find someone reliable, quotable and current who has a different take, then by all means summarise his or her points of view and we'll get a rounded (and cited) debate going there. But I'm afraid, 'We see it all the time at work' just doesn't cut it here any more. Sorry... No I'm not really, it's better like this, honestly, it is. --Nigelj (talk) 20:30, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

.java and .class

Moved discussion to Talk:Filename extension#.java and .class, where more contributors can join in, if they want. --Nigelj (talk) 19:54, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

A study on how to cover scientific uncertainties/controversies

Hi. I would like to ask whether you would agree to participate in a short survey on how to cover scientific uncertainties/controversies in articles pertaining to global warming and climate change (survey described here). If interested, please get in touch via my talkpage or email me Encyclopaedia21 (talk) 19:44, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

The AmE/BrE school years table

Hey, that's great! I always wished I found somewhere such a table and never have - thanks! --Duncan MacCall (talk) 17:58, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

My pleasure. Thanks for the feedback. --Nigelj (talk) 18:11, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

SVGified logo

You are invited to participate in a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football#PNG better than SVG if the logo is copyrighted ?. Arteyu ? _{Blame it on me !} 16:47, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip. Very interesting. Very interesting indeed. I'll keep an eye on it for a while too. --Nigelj (talk) 19:36, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for joining the discussion Nigelj Arteyu ? _{Blame it on me !} 18:24, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

For you help with the article whale. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrisrus (talk • contribs) 03:10, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

My pleasure. --Nigelj (talk) 08:17, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Talk:HTML All these {{Unreferenced}} templates

I agree with your point on the talk page (from May this year), I removed one, and someone (I assume with absolutely no idea of the subject) comes along and undoes me - pretty much showing they have no idea with the edit summary.

I moved the section to the end of the talk page. Please come along there and see if we can get a sensible consensus going, starting with the two of us! Cheers. HarryAlffa (talk) 19:42, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Harry. Thanks for the heads-up, however, I'm not so sure in this case. I've explained more fully on the talk page. --Nigelj (talk) 20:32, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Since you removed my comment you should have also removed this, which is direct personal attack. Ruslik_Zero 08:42, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

No, I'll leave any refereeing of personal battles to admins. My mistake was to get involved at all. --Nigelj (talk) 08:58, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Since I am a member of that imaginary "group of four who have been wikihounding HA", I felt that leaving his comments without a reply may create a wrong impression of my actions. Still thanks for your work on HTML article. Ruslik_Zero 09:05, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Semantic HTML

Hello Nigelj,

Thanks for improving the new article Semantic HTML!

Regards, Qwertyus (talk) 19:09, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

No prob. Thanks for creating it! --Nigelj (talk) 19:17, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

OOXML

Hi Nigel. I agree that the InfoWorld article you used as a reference (which a certain editor since deleted), was valid material, with a reliable source. It also was correctly worded to attribute the comment to InfoWorld. I can see the frustration caused by the edit wars on that article. I think that those who want to push a minority point-of-view tend to use unreliable sources, either primary sources from those involved in the controversy, or unheard-of news sources. I think that rule should apply to both sides of the debate. Anyway, don't be disheartened about contributing to the article. The current phase of rapid deletions can't be allowed to continue as it has. Cheers, Lester 02:02, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Lester. :-) --Nigelj (talk) 13:37, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

3RR on Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident‎

I would warn you, but its too late. If you self revert though, I wont report you. WVBluefield (talk) 23:03, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea what you are talking about, but I don't like the veiled threat. If you want to discuss the article, please do so on the relevant talk page and don't try to manipulate other people's edits in this way. --Nigelj (talk) 23:09, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Have it your way, but you did make 10Rv's on that page in 27 hours. Thats not good. WVBluefield (talk) 23:21, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Are you trying to thin down the opposition in a POV war? I suggest you discuss controversial edits on Talk before adding them to the article, and abide by the consensus there once something has been discussed. I am perfectly happy to stand by all the various additions and adjustments that I have to that article in the last day. Please do not make it sound like I have reverted the same or even similar things 10 times over! And you begin by threatening me that if I go and put it all back as it was 27 hours ago, you won't report me? Please. Go back to the talk page and stop trying to wind people up around this back way. --Nigelj (talk) 23:28, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Whilst WVB does not mean well, you should nonetheless take the warning seriously and see [8]. Also, be sure to read WP:3RR if you have not already William M. Connolley (talk) 08:46, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Jones email wording

Nigel, I have changed your "their authors may have threatened to attempt undermine the peer-review process" back to the original "their authors may have attempted undermine the peer-review process". I actually toned down the original quote: "the suggestions [that] climate scientists may have actively conspired to undermine the peer-review process". That just seemed too over-the-top. But let's not get too vague, either. Madman (talk) 16:45, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

This comment copied to Talk:Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident, where it can be discussed by all concerned. It is not really about me, but the article, after all. --Nigelj (talk) 18:41, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Talk on Scientific opinion on climate change

Dear editor, please keep your talk [9], [10],[11] on this article relevant to the points at hand within the thread. There are other active pages for discussing Tedder and the issues you raised. I find this talk to be out of order there. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 14:24, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Copied into the main discussion - no need to fork it onto my Talk page. --Nigelj (talk) 14:36, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I am amused you [12] cite me for both WP:SOAP and forking to talk pages (above). I shall no longer follow your example. [13], [14], [15]. With kindness Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 18:27, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Potential edit war at Scientific opinion on climate change

Please try not to edit war right after an article leaves protection; diff. Could you please in the future make explicit reference to a specific talkpage section when making reverts at that article, starting a discussion if necessary? - 2/0 (cont.) 15:29, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Personal attack

I made no personal attack on anyone, but your response to me was a personal attack. I'm not interested in escalation, but descalation. If you'll simply remove your post, I'll remove my response. If you'd like to explain why you object to what I said, please tell me what bothered you here, and I'll try to explain. Tomorrow.--SPhilbrickT 02:57, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

article comment

Nigel, that comment seems a bit excessive. please do not use semantics aginst other editors. Ok, i used the word "believe." Ok, I can change the phrasing to "holds the opinion," or :"believes based on evidence." please, let's not make ridiculous criticisms like this based on individual words. that seems totally excessive. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 18:55, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Merge discussion for Types of gestures

An article that you have been involved in editing, Types of gestures , has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going to the article and clicking on the (Discuss) link at the top of the article, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Cnilep (talk) 19:20, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Climategate question

Nigelj, you are missing the point. I'm posting here to avoid cluttering up the article talk page. Perhaps it is my fault for mentioning the time line , but I was only mentioning it in passing, in case anyone wondered why I would notice the (arguable) over emphasis on IPCC remarks. I'm not asking for feedback on the time line. There's a separate section to do that. I'm observing that in a fairly short article we have included the reactions of the IPCC in three separate sections. That's disorganized. We clearly ought to include their reactions, but we include their reactions in the scientific org section, we include a different reaction in the climatologists section, and yet a different reaction in the Other Responses section.

If IPCC is best characterized as a scientific organization, we should include their responses in the scientific organization section. If they are more appropriately labeled as climatologists, then their reactions should be in the climatologists section. If they are neither then their reactions belong in the "other" section. But not all three. I'm looking for feedback on which section should contain their reactions (or a strong argument why they belong in three different places).--SPhilbrickT 22:59, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

This seems to be about an article, and not about me. If you don't want to clutter up the article Talk page with your comments about its wording, then I certainly don't want to clutter up my Talk page with a separate discussion about its wording here. --Nigelj (talk) 23:11, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

No, it's not about an article, it's about you. Sorry to bother you.--SPhilbrickT 00:34, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Tags on Climate change in the United Kingdom

It is bad form to remove article tags without fixing the problems that they indicate. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 20:44, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

If you want to discuss edits to a specific article, please use the talk page provided, so that all involved editors may see your comments. Discussion moved to Talk:Climate change in the United Kingdom#Tagging the article --Nigelj (talk) 12:35, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Edit

I think you accidentally reverted an edit I made here. My edit dropped talk of who coined or dubbed the controversy "climategate" and stuck with the fact that it is called Climategate, and included a citation. Would you mind self-reverting that particular edit while maintaining the edit you mentioned in the edit summary? Thanks.--Heyitspeter (talk) 20:06, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

You're right, I didn't see that change, and I got no warnings of an edit conflict with that edit (unlike with the larger one that I did just before). On the other hand, I am very happy with the wording 'dubbed "Climategate" by sceptics of anthropogenic climate change' and do not see that yours is at all better. If I were to edit to your wording, that would look very much like I endorsed it. Why are you asking me to edit in your wording, that I disagree with? If you want that wording, editing it in yourself would seem far more intellectually honest than asking me to proxy it for you like this. Please do your own edits. --Nigelj (talk) 20:18, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Stop, think before importing

See my comments on article talk. • Ling.Nut 00:32, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Re: User:hAl

You're exactly correct. I've blocked the IP and made a note on hAl's talk page. Thanks. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 20:26, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Global warming

Re: this edit - might I convince you to tone it down a bit? Just stick to the policy-based arguments and omit the comments about rational, please. Also, you may want to consider whether there could be a more innocent and productive explanation for the reasoning being presented. - 2/0 (cont.) 08:20, 21 January 2010 (UTC)