User talk:NewsAndEventsGuy/Archive 1

{{archive

Radiative forcing

Hello. Parenthetical disambiguation, e.g. "Topic (modifier)", is only used when there are multiple articles that could be referred to as "Topic". For example, Mercury (element) and Mercury (planet). If you feel the name of an article is inappropriate than it could be moved to a new name that is clearer, e.g. "Tax breaks for windmills" might be renamed "Tax breaks for windmills in the United States", but we only use parentheses when there are already several topics sharing the same name. Given that radiative forcing is a major topic in climate science, I would suggest discussing possible renames on the talk page first. Dragons flight (talk) 19:57, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

an excellently phrased criticism, now I have to put it back in my brain what I did. stand by, editing time is a bit choppy today NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:29, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

OK.... i'm up to speed. Thanks for the education on wiki use of article titles followed by (these things). Other edits in climate change resolve the issue I was concerned about. Thanks for the revert, and doubly so for cleaning my mess with professionalism. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:53, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

SBHB

Hi, noticed your comment on SBHB's page, have added my own thoughts to say that your work's appreciated, and my understanding is that it's a question of time availability rather than being pushed over the edge: indeed, you were in the right in the questioning that led SBHB to respond rather dramatically, and it's likely that even before that he felt the need to step back a bit rather than making comments without the time to check the issues out properly beforehand.
Knowing how addictive Wikipedia can be, it's probable he'll be back when time permits, but unrealistic to expect early or frequent appearances. Times change for all of us!
Just to add that I've learnt a lot from my interactions with experts, including correcting my errors due to mistaken preconceptions. As long as you're willing to learn, that'll be much appreciated. . dave souza, talk 18:50, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your patience. No true scientist, even amateur ones, are unwilling to learn.

My technical writing experience (law mostly, plus some proof reading for scientist friends) inculcated a belief in ruthless top down vetted citations. As my hard science wife said, "Experts are driven nuts by having to cite stuff that's common knowledge within their field." But then its not climate experts that come to wiki to get their information. If a climate science friendly guy like me says "prove it" or "that's ambiguous to a layman" you can bet your bottom dollar the text won't really educate or persuade a lot of lay readers with a first awakening interest. My editing philosophy is to provide substantiated clarity for that audience. If I get in the way of that goal, by all means, please correct me and I will be grateful! NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:59, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Yup, verification is even more important on Wikipedia as we can't rely on expertise in any field. However, as you'll appreciate, an important qualification is that citations aren't generally needed for lead text that summarises fully cited information in the body of the article. When it gets too tedious we often do add citations, but that's an optional extra. So, I'm sure from now on you'll check the body text for citations. . . dave souza, talk 20:53, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

About my re-sectioning a talk discussion on article for global warming

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, talk pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments, as you did at Talk:Global warming, is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Even making spelling and grammatical corrections in others' comments is generally frowned upon, as it tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Atmoz (talk) 17:03, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for calling attention to the bad practice page. Turns out what I did to was justified under four examples for appropriate edits of another's comments, including (1) Fixing format errors that render material difficult to read; (2) Fixing layout errors; (3) Sectioning; and (4) Section headings: It is generally acceptable to change headings when a better header is appropriate. I'm sure he didn't mean to inject chaos into the 3-issue drive for consensus, but to use a technical editing metaphor, that was a difficult run-on sentence. Now each issue can be evaluated on its own with clarity as to which issue who is talking about when. So I gave his 3 complaints subsection headings without modifying ANY of his text (or yours) and that will facilitate the consensus process. They were all LEDE-neutrality challenges, as was yours, so it seemed logical to include yours as a subsection also. I apologize if that upsets you and bad practices does say stop of objected to, so I'll try to remember not to do that to yours again provided the discussion isn't at a standstill due to chaos.

I welcome education about using Wiki please keep it coming. Meanwhile, have you had a chance to look at my response to your neutrality challenge on Talk:Global warming yet? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:32, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi, while the guideline suggests these as possible justifications for minimal refactoring to simplify relating follow up comments, it's always important to realise that people can be offended. A good idea is to offer to undo the change if preferred, it's always an option to leave the original post alone and duplicate it with indented answers. It's also clearer to replicate the original author's signature and date stamp on each subsection, showing the sequence of threaded comments much more clearly: I've done that and alerted Enescot to the change, giving the option of undoing it. Tact is of the essence! [hope I don't get into trouble now!!] . . dave souza, talk 18:11, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Get in trouble? Heck no, that is excellent advice! (((HEY ATMOZ))) I'd be happy to undo the subsection for your comment if you like. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:43, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Recent Headlines I care about

Current Carbon Dioxide Emission Higher Than It Was Just Before Ancient Episode of Severe Global Warming That's the headline for this news story, with journal link at the bottom.

Thank you for your recent comments on Talk:Global warming.

Thank you for your recent comments on Talk:Global warming (Talk:Global_warming#Add_comparison_shown_in_Scientific_American.27s_article_The_Last_Great_Global_Warming_by_Lee_R._Kump_June_29.2C_2011.). 108.73.114.77 (talk) 03:07, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you (",)

Thank you NewsAndEventsGuy for your contribution to Climate change mitigation. (",) 99.112.213.202 (talk) 01:48, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

WP:EGG

In this edit, you add an internal link to [[Special_Report_on_Emissions_Scenarios#A2|"A2 scenario"]]. With no prior explanation of what "A2 scenario" is, or SRES for that matter, this constitutes an easter egg and needs to be avoided per style guidelines. Thanks. -Atmoz (talk) 14:47, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Sigh... I linked to A2 instead of the wiki SRES article specifically to head off griping from you based on a prior headbutting. I guess I agree that the attempt was misguided and defeated good writing. Oh well. Thanks for keeping it polite this time. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:06, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Climate change

<< this thread was moved with permission of all participants to the Talk:Climate_change>>

Odd "merger" proposal

I see you are getting a taste of dealing with an active editor many others have found difficult to deal with.

You may want to keep track of his behavior that seems to go against such Wikipedia policies such as WP:Civility and WP:NPA. A number of editors who have had unpleasant encounters with this individual are doing so. See, for example (link deleted from my talk page to not fan flames with the editor in question) Best wishes, Pete Tillman (talk) 00:46, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I feel your pain but life's too short and my dedication to constructive consensus elsewhere speaks for itself. Besides, if I'm on the receiving end of a formal complaint from that editor, something tells me his contrib history will readily supply more counter-complaint evidence than I can use. 'cheerio NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:07, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

You seem to be handling him better than me. And thanks for taking an interest in the Climate Change pages, which are usually a POV mess! Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 21:34, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Which kind of editor do you want to be

Hi, I noticed you created NewsAndEventsGuy/Which kind of editor do you want to be in the article space. I assume your intent here was to create a user page, so I moved it to User:NewsAndEventsGuy/Which kind of editor do you want to be. The "User:" prefix (complete with the colon) is necessary for the software to recognize the page as being in your user space. If I have misinterpreted your intent, please let me know. Cheers! —KuyaBriBri^Talk 14:14, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Mucho gracias. Dopey me. 'cheerio NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:19, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Good call

Thanks, shouldn't have done the last response looking back but oh well. Cheers ^Khukri 19:56, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for affirmation I'm on the right track. 'day NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:06, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Clarification requested

Hello. Recently, you've made a series of allegations against me that require clarification. I am posting this thread in a attempt to reach some closure and clear up any misunderstandings....

Viriditas (talk) 09:34, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

I deleted the rest of your comment per WP:OWNTALK. If you wish to repost it at ANI in a formal proceeding I will answer according to the procedural rules at ANI.

I can understand if you experienced irritation having four debates with the same guy at the same time recently. Note that you persuaded me on one of them. That's evidence that I'm not "after" you and I am capable of admitting I was wrong. All I care about is a good encyclopedia.

Trying to resolve this is a good goal. I used to be VORP mediator. It's my trained opinion we need outside help. Please recall that I had to tell you THREE TIMES that you persuaded me and we had reached consensus over one of your edits. On that basis it's my unwavering opinion that we need outside help to resolve this. So please say whatever you like about me at ANI, I give you permission. Load it up. Even if you haven't checked with me first - it's fine I don't mind.

I will answer whatever you wish to ask/allege/suspect/accuse about my editing behavior in that forum, but not here. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:47, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

(Sections of this comment redacted, see version history if you really wanna know what it said) Sorry, but I don't understand your evasion...... I will once again remind you of WP:AGF...... Viriditas (talk) 10:54, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

I didn't say you lack good faith, only that we need outside help communicating, as evidence I submit your instant non-assumption of good faith thru the loaded word "evasion".... which it is not, because there is a simple way to have me speak and that is to file your complaint at ANI. I will be THANKFUL for a chance to tell you the answer to your questions in that forum. Evasion? Sheesh. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:59, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

UPDATE: I've reviewed the dispute resolution procedures and now know about several available tools prior to formal ANI. If you want to make a request/question/(or other word of your choice) at one of those lower levels, for example WP:THIRD, I will participate. When I have asked you to do ANI, I was under the misperception that was the only option. Any of the options under wiki's dispute resolution process other than us just trying to talk to each other is fine with me, but you do the work of starting it. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:54, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Oh. 3-o won't work since it looks back at some talk page and this conversation spans many. My offer to participate goes to any process where you take your issue with me and we write something up and submit it to others, or have a new conversation involving referees of some sort. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:22, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

including diffs of courseNewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 03:06, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for this, seems i earned a "boo hisss..." there. Rolling on... Vsmith (talk) 13:23, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

You're quite welcome, and I do it myself sometimes. Especially dangerous for me, given my memory, is when I think I remember a cite's contents accurately, even though I read it more than a few days back. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:24, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Climate change in the United States

Hi NewsAndEventsGuy, thanks for the discussion in Talk:Climate change in the United States. I expect this section "Potential effects of climate change in the United States" will be further developed in time. Watti Renew (talk) 10:54, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

'Harv' demo

First, a some clarifications, because the terminology is all kinds of screwed-up. 1) A reference (strictly speaking) is a full description (bibliographic details) of a source that aids in finding and identifying it. 2) A citation is the mention ("reference"? ambiguity alert!) of the specific location in a source referred to or quoted. As listing all of the bibliographic details for multiple citations (mentions) would be laborious, tiresome, and prone to error, this is usually done only once, in a Bibliography or References section; a specific citation then needing only to point (link) to the fuller description. 3) The confusingly named {{citation}} and {{cite *}} templates actually assemble references (from the supplied data).

Now references (e.g., {{citation}} templates) can be placed anywhere. Like in the text: IPCC TAR WG1 (2001), Houghton, J.T.; Ding, Y.; Griggs, D.J.; Noguer, M.; van der Linden, P.J.; Dai, X.; Maskell, K.; and Johnson, C.A. (ed.), Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis, Contribution of Working Group I to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Cambridge University Press, ISBN 0-521-80767-0{{citation}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: editors list (link) CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link) (pb: 0-521-01495-6). (Ugh. Overwhelms whatever point was being made.) Or discretely buried in a note (between <ref></ref> tags) like this: , which is collected somewhere else (see below) by the {{reflist}} template. More ambiguity: note that what goes between a pair of <ref> tags is a note, and not necessarily a "reference"

So here is the problem: how to re-use a reference without having to repeat it. The common solution is to use "named refs" (e.g.: <ref name=ipcc 2001> ... </ref>), which will replicated everywhere a corresponding tag is used (<ref name=ipcc 2001 />); undoubtably you are familiar with all that. And perhaps also with what a royal PAIN it is to edit text with named refs -- it's a lot of work to chase them down. And of course there is no way to individualize specific instances; they're all identical. Adding (say) a chapter heading or page number makes a different ref, which then must be loaded up with all the redundant bibiographic detail. (That's the current state of Global warming#References.)

At this point I will ring in on a major peeve of mine: mixing bibliographic details in article text. In edit mode that confuses both text and bibliography, and precludes alphabetizing the bibliography (recommended where an article has more than a dozen references).

Here is my highly recommended solution: the {{Harv}} family of templates. The {{citation}} templates (and {{cite *}} with a "ref=harv" parameter) automatically create an anchor, based on (in the simplest cases) the author(s) last names and the year of publication. The {{Harv}} templates 1) create a link to that anchor, and 2) insert an appropriate author-date ("Harvard" style) citation. E.g., to cite something about a tsunami I might add {{Harv|Atwater|Moore|1992}}, which gives me Atwater & Moore 1992. I can also put it in a note (see ), adding any sort of description and specification. And there you have it: easy multiple re-use, with full individual customization,

There are some complications, mainly with the "et. al" for multiple authors. The simple way around this is to add an explict ref=CITEREF; see the template for Blakely & others (2009). And the IPCC references I put together use an odd "author": IPCC AR4 WG1 (2009). But purpose here is not explain everything, but to demonstrate how Harv works. QED. For further examples where Harv has been partially implemented see Special_Report_on_Emissions_Scenarios#Notes.

---

"Below" -- often in "Notes" or "References" sections:

Assembled by {{reflist}}:

Separately organized (and much easier to maintain!!):

• Atwater, B. F.; Moore, A. L. (4 December 1992), "A Tsunami About 1000 Years Ago in Puget Sound, Washington" (PDF), Science, 258: 1614–1617, doi:10.1126/science.258.5088.1614
• Blakely, R. J.; Sherrod, B. L.; Hughes, J. F.; Anderson, M. L.; Wells, R. E.; Weaver, C. S. (2009), "The Saddle Mountain Fault Deformation Zone, Olympic Peninsula, Washington: Western Boundary of the Seattle Uplift" (PDF), Geosphere, 5 (2): 105–125, doi:10.1130/GES00196.1
• IPCC AR4 WG1 (2007), Solomon, S.; Qin, D.; Manning, M.; Chen, Z.; Marquis, M.; Averyt, K.B.; Tignor, M.; and Miller, H.L. (ed.), Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis, Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Cambridge University Press, ISBN 978-0-521-88009-1{{citation}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: editors list (link) CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link) (pb: 978-0-521-70596-7)

wow... still processing. Thanks for the explanation. Certainly the usual (ref name=) sort of thing is a royal pain. Harv looks interesting, stay tuned... NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:37, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

[1]

If you're going to title your eddit summary "fact correction", can you please make sure your facts are right? That's not a list of global warming deniers, it's a page linking to debunkings of common global warming arguments. There is no list of global warming deniers anywhere on that page, and if you're going to claim that if you stripped out all the explanations of why the people are wrong you'd end up with something like the list we have here, think about that a moment.

Seriously, pulling this type of stunt just makes you look bad. Can we keep the argument to a higher level than that? 86.** IP (talk) 04:58, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Look again. Taking one at random, under subheading "it's cooling" try clicking "Oceans are cooling". Or you can just take [this shortcut]. There, you will see a statement attributed to skeptic/denier William DiPuccio. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 05:14, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Really appreciate you taking the time and thought to engage more in the discussion rather than just "sounding off". I actually think we've made some progress with the lead. There are still a couple more things I want to look at later, but it's a question of finding time, and in any case it's probably sensible to let the current discussions die down first. --Merlinme (talk) 09:52, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

You are welcome, I think. Have you ever thought I was just sounding off in any remarks I have ever made to you? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:30, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Not particularly, no, occasionally I thought you were getting drawn into arguments with other people, but that happens; however there are many other people who watch the page who seem to spend a lot of time sounding off, and what I meant in my thanks was to thank you for joining the ranks of the those of who watch the page who are actually trying to do something constructive with it. :-) --Merlinme (talk) 11:08, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying and the kind words. Unfortunately, I seem to have a long running poor relationship with a another well intentioned climate editor who has been active on that talk page. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:14, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

AFD discussion

Hi,

Could you strike, modify or merge your second !vote at the climate change conspiracy AFD? I can't find the guideline after a very small amount of searching, but it's generally seen as unhelpful because it interferes with the administrator's summarizing of the consensus at the end of the discussion. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 21:10, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Sure thing, thanks for calling attention politely. SorryNewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:59, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

No worries, I just wish I had a link for you. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 23:16, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Discussions with 86**.IP about forum shopping and over-tagging

First chapter to appear on my talk page

Can we just drop this? I was willing to set out my points, and you're now dragging this out into a huge argument, with more space spent discussing it than the original brief explanation - which, again, you implicitly asked for. You're kinda trolling now.

Seriously, you're the one who implicitly asked for an explanation of the reasons for the POV tag. And went above the 1RR you're permitted on that page in order to remove it the second time, I might add - check the top of the page when you edit it. I obviously don't think you should be censured for accidentally going over the 1RR, but only one of us actually broke any rules here, and it wasn't me. 86.** IP (talk) 18:36, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I left that warning on your talk page, which you so very civilly describe as "bullshit", because if you continue to over tag and forum shop after my polite requests to stop I plan to complain more formally, and there is now a paper trail showing you now know that wiki policy (not just me) refers to these behaviors as "disruptive". I respect your passion. IMO you would be far more effective if your energy were channeled with a bit more discipline, instead of being wasted doing carpet bombing. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:52, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

COMMENT: This conversation is continued here Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Claims_that_a_POV_tag_is_forumshopping NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:03, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Second chapter to appear on my talk page

COMMENT: In this chapter, 86 is referring to this thread I mistakenly placed on the wikietiquette board] NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:48, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

You've seriously forumshopped your accusations against me. There's a thread on it open on ANI, but you forumshop instead. Have you thought about what you're doing? Do you really believe you're justified forumshopping bullshit accusations of forumshopping? 86.** IP (talk) 22:52, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Uh, no. If one assumes good faith, one generally has to entertain the possibility that people can make honest mistakes, such as asking others to give feedback on policy interp at the wrong place. Your ANI thread appears to seek discipline action against me, but never concisely and neutrally formulates the question I posted to wikietiquette.

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:48, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Third chapter to appear on my talk page

COMMENT: In this chapter, 86 is responding to the this comment I left on his talk pageNewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 04:46, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm willing to let the subject drop, but feel I'm owed an apology as you did, in a far, far clearer form, the forumshopping you accused me of, when what I did was not, to any reasonable eye, forumshiopping.

You also ask me to Assume good faith about you, when you assumed bad faith the moment I simply opened a thread on the talk page, and immediately accused me of forumshopping and other bad behaviour.

If you have objections to tags, fine, we can discuss them. But don't immediately accuse me of bad faith again, when I was doing what you pretty much asked me to - as you admitted (something like "I asked you to do that as I didn't know your argument, but see it's the same as on the Afd"). It gives a strong appearance of trolling.

Maybe we can get along. I'm willing to restore an assumption of good faith, if you'll do the same. 86.** IP (talk) 21:49, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

The second paragraph of WP:DISRUPT reads in its entirety, "Disruptive editing is not always intentional. An editor may be accidentally disruptive because they don't understand how to correctly edit, or because they lack the social skills or competence necessary to work collaboratively. The fact that the disruption occurs in good faith does not change the fact that it is harmful to Wikipedia." I admit that I said your overtagging and forumshopping strikes me as being "disruptive" as described in WP:OVERTAGGING and WP:FORUMSHOP. Please provide a DIFF where you think I accused you of WP:OVERTAGGING and WP:FORUMSHOP in bad faith. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:19, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

IPCC citation

All most forgot (what with all the distractions): I've put together some of the documentation for doing the IPCC citations. Take a look at Talk:Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change/citation and links, and let me know what you think. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:42, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Great timing JJ! I was looking over stuff today and had the strong thought that I needed to say thanks for your work. I still have not loaded it into my brain. Would Global warming or Effects of global warming be a good place to look at your finished (so far) work when I get to it .... probably a week or more before I can devote time to thinking citation reprogramming of my brain. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:31, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Global warming is a good place to look at, in part because I haven't finished the revisions, so you can readily compare the old and the new. Well, I have already revised the really bad cases, so for those you have to go back to September or August.

I saw an interesting quote last week (but neglected to make a note of it!) that what is hard is not learning new stuff, but unprogramming the old stuff. Yes. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:09, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't get it

I think the discussion at Talk:Current sea level rise has gone on too long, but I have some remaining questions. If you would like to drop it, I'll understand, but I am not in agreement that the current situation is ideal. I work on a lot of pages, and in many cases, they are so far from ideal, that I wouldn't bother with this point, but given the interest in a tight,coherent referencing system for IPCC material, I'm surprised that this detail is still being handled badly.

Yes, as I guessed, there is an html version, and a PDF version of the printed document. The printed document has page numbers, as does the PDF. The html version does not.

What we have done is provide a url which links to the html verion, yet provide a page number that appears nowhere in that site. How on earth is this a good thing? At best, it will be ignored, at worst it will be misleading. If someone looks at the footnote, sees the reference to page 8, clicks on the link and then searches for page 8, they won't find it. This is not a service, it is a disservice. How can this be considered a good thing?

There are a couple of obvious solutions, and maybe someone clever can come up with a better one. One solution is to link to the pdf, in which case identifying the page number would be useful. Another is to provide two footnotes, which I don't like, so I won't dwell on it. Another approach is to expand the footnote, essentially with two citations, one of which goes to the html site, no page number, and the other of which goes to the online link to the pdf, and include a page number.

In essence, JJ wants us to have a link to one place, and tell the reader that if they had downloaded a different, unspecified document, then they would find the table on page 8 of that different document. It is mind-blowing that this is even controversial. Who can possibly think this is a good idea?--SPhilbrick(Talk) 18:47, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

BTW, I just read your "Tricks for consensus in a heated environment". I'm a firm supported of the magic bullet. It can be quite effective.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 18:50, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

One more BTW - I do remember reading about the proposal to cut down trees and "pickle" them. In the version I read, it wasn't sinking them offshore, it was burying them deep enough to keep oxygen out, but essentially the same concept. I loved the nonlinear thinking aspect of it, even if we don't actually do it. Unfortunately, this was many years ago, and I don't have a clue where I read it.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 18:54, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Ah ha! There are two problems with the cite at sea level rise. First, there is a SYNTHESIS report, which is an RS for our article. But that document has a chapter designed to be excerpted and separately discussed called informally "Summary report of policy makers". The info we need to support our article as an RS is also included there. Somehow we are now giving the link for one and the page for the other. Second, once the cite is laser-focused on the full synthesis report, I think we'll find that the formatting for the cite in the article does not completely match JJ's design for citations to the Syr. Give me a chance to clear those up and then let's revisit. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:12, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Sounds positive. I'm not really in any rush, but I wasn't convinced the problem was even understood. Now I think it is.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 19:26, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

::::::Perhaps I could add a small clarification? My approach is that page numbers should be linked to the proper pdf, where it actually has some relevance. (In addition to linking the section to the html version.) I don't believe there are variant pdfs out there, but even if there were it wouldn't matter: they all reference (or should!) the print version, for which no revised editions are known. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:18, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

JJ, please wait for a Q or something that remains problematic after the dust as settled. You need to give your class a chance to experiment and discuss.... and to work out problems for themselves. If you constantly break in to teach you may further turn them off to the topic. Thanks. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:45, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Okay. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:20, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

You are misinformed

I ran into a problem with Souza.

My first step was to correct the article and post in the article's talk.

My second step was to check his history.

AT WHICH POINT I FOUND OUT THAT HE HAD ALREADY BROUGHT THE ISSUE TO JIMBO.

Go ahead look at the history. (Also look at the misrepresentations he made to Jimbo). Jsolinsky (talk) 22:36, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Assuming that is true, then I still do not apologize for my tone because it takes two to have a schoolyard brawl. WP:DISPUTE exists for a reason. Use it like a big boy, and then my tone will change. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:53, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Your excuse for not being civil is laughable and reflects very poorly on you and your character.

I use the dispute process when I have a dispute. I comment on Jimbo's talk page when Jimbo makes a comment there on which I have directly relevant information.

If you are offended that I would _dare_ respond to one of Jimbo's comments, that is your problem, not mine. Jsolinsky (talk) 23:06, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

When you want to disabuse someone as to facts of some story, you really ought to try to give the FULL story complete with links right away instead of just whining complaining about what the person says under the misperception of the facts. It is not good process to let them flap in the wind first. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:43, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Seriously? You think that your behavior was my fault?

I had originally assumed that your knowledge of my comment on Jimbo's talk page was a result of you actually reading Jimbo's talk page. This seemed like a reasonable assumption. If you had already seen the conversation, then there would be nothing to disabuse you of.

That brings up an interesting question. If you didn't see the conversation yourself, how did you find out about it? Jsolinsky (talk) 02:05, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Actually, the discussion at Jimbo's page clearly shows you INITIATING nasty accusations about another editor to Jimbo outside the WP:DISPUTE process. Your reference to the order of speaking is hardly a justification for your running to Mommy Jimbo because you had a dispute - which you refuse to acknowledge - with another editor. If you just won't admit there was a dispute you're a troll. If you don't understand there was a dispute, it reminds me of the lemon juice bandit.

BOTTOM LINE: Big boys don't make excuses, such as the mere order of speaking. Big boys don't have to run to Mommy Jimbo. WP:DISPUTE exists for a reason. Use it. I'm through with this discussion on my talk page. Further commentary here will be deleted. If you wish to make a formal complaint via some mechanism at WP:DISPUTE please do. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 08:27, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

"Big boys don't make excuses": That's funny. I thought this whole conversation is about how YOU feel justified in behaving UNCIVILLY towards ME because I posted on Jimbo's page. In other words, you are using my legitimate Wikipedia behavior (expressing an opinion in a talk page discussion) to justify behavior on your part that blatantly violates Wikipedia policy. [Wikipedia:Civility]

I ask that you start behaving civilly towards me OR stop editing pages which I edit. I hate wasting the administrators' time. To avoid any such waste, you should retract your threat to treat me with incivility unless I apologize for my legitimate comments on Jimmy's page. Jsolinsky (talk) 12:14, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Smearing editor A in the eyes of editor B on Editor B's talk page, after your own failure to successfully use WP:DISPUTE to resolve a content issue at the time of the edits you did not like, is uncivil and childish. Further reply on your talk page. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:02, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I didn't smear him. I accurately characterized his conduct in response to a conversation about that conduct. Jsolinsky (talk) 13:32, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Conversations with (or about) block-evading editor Jdey123 aka 91.85.47.208

Stop deleting entries you disagree with

test — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.85.47.208 (talk) 16:16, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

That depends on my reasons for deleting them. Meanwhile, maybe you could stop reposting the same thing over and over and over and over and over and over? After the talk page discussion runs its course (see WP:BRD) if you are still unhappy it is disruptive to keep reposting the same thing over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and. Instead, your next step is to engage in one of the mechanisms described at WP:DISPUTE NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:06, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Global Warming Controversy". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 4 February 2012. Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
(talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 18:45, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Here is my reason for declining to participate. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:39, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

UPDATE: Find it in the archives

Response to a wiki-email I received today

(A) Beats me. I am not an expert in the subject, and usually go to sleep before I get done reading. I mostly follow it in case I can help on a process level.

(B) I can understand your frustration with that particular clock, but I don't know what makes it tick, either. However, IMO, the way your own clock ticks draws those frustrating behaviors like a magnet. My advice is two fold.

First and foremost, work extra hard to purge all sarcasm, cynicism, useages of the 2nd pronoun "you" from your writing (except where you have a question and would be pleased to be asked it if you were the other party), and when asserting you have a home run argument don't sound self obsessed with certainty or imply the other guy is dumb or intentionally blocking progress. And I don't have any diffs in mind for that list...... I am just saying your general reputation with ME is of someone who could, maybe, sometime, stick in a dig or over-abundance of certitude. So without saying you did any of those specific things, I am suggesting you compose in a word processor, save, and do tone-of-voice editing after a good night's sleep. Perhaps you can reduce your own magnetic attraction for the other party's frustrating behaviors. Along this line, while I do not mean to equate the other time piece with either divas or trolls, the idea of working with others behaviors by changing your own is a common theme in wiki essays about divas and trolls. So reading them may help.

Second, seek some outside help. A third party might be a good place to start, using an editor who won't nod off due to the subject matter, which eliminates me...... But an even better place to start would be to tell the other party you think its time for a WP:DISPUTE intervention, and for YOU to ask THEM to pick the method they would most prefer. That way it is a mutual process, instead of inadvertently appearing to be a hostile one.

Good luck NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:59, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

What’s going on?

You’ve reverted or questioned some of my edits across three different articles recently, and have twice resorted to capitals (shouting) in the associated edit summary. What’s going on? Have I offended? Are you tracking my edits? Johnfos (talk) 00:18, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry about the caps, my apostrophe key often doesnt register (no typo was intended just now). It is meant as an alternative form of bold or italics. I always check contribs of editors that appear at potentially controversial articles I watch for the first time since I started watching them. Doesn't everyone? It is not personal, John. Let's look at the merit of the edits to try to make strong articles thru a strong collaborative process. As for cutting out the polling info from Anti-nuclear movement, I sort of thought that might make sense. However, I was disturbed that there was no tag-and-wait period to get the input from our wiki colleagues. I probably agree with the edit on that one, just not the consensus process. Perhaps some detail in the guidelines say the process was fine, I don't know. But I am certain the larger policy is to seek discussion to make sure there is consensus. Anyway.... pleased to meet you, and its not personal. Just what happens when a meeting of two editors with overlapping topic interests propels one of them into a several new articles at once. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 05:33, 14 January 2012 (UTC) PS, and yes, I am now aware that it is _permitted_ (another form of italics) to be bold to do splits. I just personally think it is better to discuss those first, esp on articles about controversial topics, and that article certainly covers one of those. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 05:44, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Blogs

Hi, noticed you asking Pete about this. Don't know what response he'll give, my quick guide is that WP:SPS policy is that blogs etc. are "largely not acceptable as sources. Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications", but must be used with care.
WP:BLPSPS means we never use blogs as sources about other living people, though they can be used about the author themself subject to the limitations of WP:SELFPUB. That's been strongly emphasised by WP:ARBCC#Use of blogs and self-published sources in the climate topic area. (it may also be worth noting other outcomes of that case, including the principle of WP:ARBCC#Undue weight.)
Now an exception: WP:NEWSBLOG gives some leeway "if the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control", though probably best treated as opinion pieces. That's also mentioned under WP:BLPSPS, so applies to bios of living people.
So, the blogs you were enquiring about can only be used when by an established published expert on the topic or as a source about the author of the blog, and must not be used as a source of anything about other living people. Context is important. Hope that's useful to you, . dave souza, talk 20:23, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Global Warming FAQ

I am not making this comment on the GW talk page, as I have no intention of continuing the discussion there. But I find you to be a very neutral editor, and that's why I am trying to prove my point..... Pewfly (talk) 03:16, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

By your own admission, your comment is a self-obsessed desire to win and does not seek to improve the project, so I read only as far as I snipped it off pursuant to WP:OWNTALK. If you appeared at GW with intellectual integrity, and I'd like to believe that is true, then get your hiney back there to try to NPOV the text, not just delete it. I suspect you can't, or won't, and that proves my point, but I would be immensely please to be proven wrong. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 03:25, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Now I fear I made a mistake in judging you as a neutral editor. Maybe "to prove my point" was not the right phrase. If you care to know, I am not a native English speaker, and may not use the right words. But your refusal to read whatever that was beyond that phrase, forces me to believe that you too have no real intention of continuing an unbiased discussion with me (trolling maybe a good word). And cut the false modesty "I would be immensely please to be proven wrong" — Pewfly (talk) 03:36, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Dude, I'm not interested in listening to you whine about a content dispute in private dialogue when you admit you have no intention of working on the article. Wiki is not a battleground, and my talk page does not provide therapy services. It is possible to edit FAQ Q2 to be more NPOV. Since you can't, or won't, you've got just as much bias as you are accusing others of having. Kindly take your POV accusations elsewhere, thanks. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 03:39, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Please be careful, and check the results of your edits.

This [2] edit - moved some of Meis' comments and striked one of my comments (it was Meis who had striken some of his own ones)... --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:41, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, glad you fixed it. Originally I moved his, and then further exam of the chronology in that section made me change my mind. I meant to put it back where it was but screwed up. Obviously, with the visual chaos of the page my eye missed this error when I checked the results. Thanks for fixing it. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:57, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

My adding (keep) to an "abuse of process" !vote at AFD

Don't do that. 86.** IP (talk) 16:53, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I left a message on Greg's talk page. Since it was his !vote, let's see what he thinks. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:55, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Just to confirm that refactoring others comments (and especially in an AfD discussion) is not good. Please don't do it, even if it appears blindingly obvious what they meant. If it IS blindingly obvious then the closing admin will see it too and does not need your commentary. Closing admins don't just quickly scan down the list and add up the !votes on each side, so your addition of keep, even if accurate, was superfluous. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 17:08, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Kim you may be right, and I had 4 edit conflicts at the ANI (before it was closed) where I was trying to say I pinged Greg, the editor in question. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:27, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks N&EG - glad you see it that way. In a future case, pinging the original editor and asking them if they want to make their !vote clearer themselves will be the safest option.All the best, Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 18:14, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Confessions

Thank you for your amendments about scientists for and against climate change. I must confess to not keeping a close eye on the page. Warm regards John D. Croft (talk) 01:19, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Etiquette

Hi, thought I'd give my apologies in somewhat more depth. The Village Pump thing was just a response to Spartaz's assertion that I was a lone voice, so I did a quick listing of the people who'd commented but didn't actively oppose, but you had actually made your (neutral) views pretty clear and I'm sorry for misrepresenting you. Re: the AfD, I assume we're basically on the same side, and sometimes it worries me when you seem to be goading editors arguing the other way. I mean, to actually say that you're expecting to be reported for incivility suggests that you know you're going a bit close to the bone, but you're doing it anyway. I don't think that's particularly helpful; my method is always to try to keep things collaborative rather then confrontatonal, but- and this is where I sincerely apologise and promise I won't do it again- you should of course be allowed to speak any way you want to. And it's entirely possible that I'm wrong about the best way to win the argument anyway; it's not a science. So I won't do it again. And if you ever think I've done it again, please give me a gentle reminder.
While we're vaguely on the subject of etiquette, you are the only person in the universe who calls me mer. Lots of people call me merlin- that's my name. A few people who've known me for years call me merl. No-one except you calls me mer. I don't mind exactly, it's just a bit odd. In general I think it's safer to call people by their full name unless you know what they like to be called, or unless you know them very well. That's why I've called you NewsAndEventsGuy, even though it's a bit of a swine to type. :-) I've now seen you use NAEG though, so I'll probably use that in future. And if you want to abbreviate merlinme, merlin is good, merl is perfectly fine, M or MM are also fine.
Anyway, on an entirely separate note I think the AfD is going well. I wouldn't like to put money on it, but I'd have thought there's some chance it might even get closed as a Keep. Fingers crossed, eh. --Merlinme (talk) 17:41, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I often use first initial. Somehow, Mer seemed to express greater familiarity. I'll try to remember to go with M though. Guy also works for me, and is easier to type than NAEG, but I don't really care what I get called, and I have heard some doozies! NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:01, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

It's perhaps a bit weirder for me because my Wiki name is very close to my actual name. Anyway, if M works for you, use that. --Merlinme (talk) 18:05, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Talk:List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming

I asked, "Despite the obvious pov that we're giving prominence to this topic and these scientists?" You didn't address my question, so I'm not sure how to further articulate how FRINGE and NPOV apply. However, I think it's a safe assumption to make that the obvious problems need elaboration... --Ronz (talk) 22:08, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

This belongs on the article talk page. I replied there. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 02:08, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Rollback rights (was "Persistent block-evading IP-hopping editor")

Thanks for your message on my talk page. I've replied there. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:20, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

...and again. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:53, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I've given you rollback rights. It's not really such a big deal as some people make out, though it's not the tool to put in the hands of a new and untested user. If you don't already know all about it, have a look at WP:Rollback. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:03, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Great, thanks. Hopefully this will be a good tool to encourage that user to just work on one article in a meaningful way in each session. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:15, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Global warming controversy

There are many global warming "heretics". These are scientists who have non-mainstream opinions about our role in global warming, or our understanding of the precoesses involved. These are Phd. holders and many of them are not affiliated with any organization, corporation or a political group or agenda (not any more then the mainstream science is at any rate). Among these, are two physics nobel prize winners, whos opinions should also be heard. When the header of the "Global warming controversy" article states there are no discussions and the matter is closed among scientists, it is misleading. This article should be about the controversy, not stating (misleadingly) that it is a non issue and hide the fact that many prime scientists claim it is not as black and white as you might think. Maybe my sentence was out of place in the nerrative, but that's only because I wanted to do the minimal change possible and not rewrite the whole header. Maybe there should be a more in depth part about the opinions of these "heretics", in addition to the header mentioning them... Hope you could help me make this article better reflect the controversy instead of just saying there is none. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.110.5.217 (talk) 20:30, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

A) The folks you are ballyhooing need only conduct research; analyze the results; and publish contradictory conclusions in the professional literature and then they will be taken seriously. (B) Suggest you take some time to watch this film about the doubters. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:39, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

These scientists do not question the data, they question the models used in analysis. building a model which would take into account deforestation, population growth, sun activity (which in itself is not wholly understood) etc. is not a task the scientific community is able to do in their opinion - hence they cannot build such a model and give contradicting results. They just claim the mainstream predictions rely on bogus models and must be taken with a grain of salt. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrWorshipMe (talk • contribs) 09:53, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

They just misinform, for the same reason that several of the same scientists were happy to misinform about tobacco and asbestos. Which explains their fringe claims. . dave souza, talk 12:52, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Care to back this statement with some data? The subject is global warming controversy, you might disagree with the scientists who have "fringe claims" - but ignoring they exist while talking about "global warming controversy" and stating at the preface there are no scientists with different views then those in the mainstream seems like the greatest misinformation example to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrWorshipMe (talk • contribs) 18:15, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Hurricane Sandy talk

Thank you for the notice on my talk page. Talk:Hurricane Sandy is quite large, redundant, and hard to read. I may not have reiterated otherwise.
—Sowlos (talk) 07:13, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 6

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Hurricane Sandy, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Michael Mann (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) 11:25, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Fixed it. Thanks bot NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:51, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

An unfair request

My section heading is intended to give you an out; please feel no obligation to follow through on this request; I was struck by a timing coincidence.

I read the notes at the top of the page, about your "Tricks for consensus in a heated environment". I noted above my concurrence with the "repeat back approach", but even as I was typing that, I had in mind an attempt that failed. Seconds after the post, I clicked on a link at my talk page, suggesting I take a look at an item on the Dispute resolution noticeboard. That item included a collapsed discussion (titled " Discussion on Ghostofnemo's talkpage") which is the exact incident I had in mind.

If the incident were dead, I'd be interested in your comments on my attempt, and whether there was something I could do better. Because the incident isn't dead, it is of more than academic interest, so I would really be interested in how to improve my approach, because I may try again. However, mindful of the classic definition of insanity, I don't want to try again if I'm going to do the exact same thing.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 14:12, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

25-50-25;

• 25% of people will be mad at you (or unteachable) no matter what you do, so don't waste your time trying to change them.
• 25% of people will be thrilled with you (or self-directed learners) so don't waste your time trying to change them.
• Just focus on the 50% where you can make a difference.

My sense of the discussion was "too many words", and "it's probably easier to just repair the articles he edits". If it were me, I'd just spell out that Fringe treatment requires the mainstream position to be objectively assertively stated first, and then the later sections can present minority views along the lines of "Despite these findings, some say that.....)" And then stop trying. If he can't present his fringe views that way, I suppose ANI and a warning that he has to present the info via WP:ENEMY and if that fails he will have shown he's in that first 25% and unable to do consensus and NPOV. So he'd merit a topic block. But the evidence would be somewhat theoretical (failure to produce).

However, I'd prefer another approach. Instead of either blanket deletion of his edits or pounding your head on the educational wall, maybe other editors (those who spend time arguing) ought to just spend that time reworking the same material to bring it into compliance with wiki and thus improve the article both in quality and in scope. Maybe some do, I did not wade thru all the diffs. The idea is to present the strength of the mainstream and then present the fringe view as a minority viewpoint. Some fringe-advocates will go along, in the face of determined NPOV revisions. Others (those in that first 25%) will compulsively try to restore their own dismissive spin on the mainstream view. That's edit warring. Maybe he needs a special version of 3RR if he spreads the edits out over time. But this approach keeps others doing proactive improvements (as opposed to fighting) and gives him a chance to hang himself with a much more tangible paper trail.

It's nice you want to try to reach out to him. But some just don't get it and don't realize they don't get it. See the lemon juice bandit; NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:36, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

PS, Another reason to favor the 2nd approach is that my wild-donkey-guess is that it will be more likely to garner administrator interest. If I were an ANI admin, and was involved under a complaint with the first approach, my tendency would be to ignore the accused and tell the complaining people, "Don't bitch..... fix. And let 3RR do the work" RESOLVED in under 10 words! Too many combatants, and not enough editors. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:47, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the link to the lemon juice bandit. I knew some of the issues discussed, but not all of them, and it is a fascinating read.

On the original subject, I understand the first category, but hope, perhaps naively, that it is smaller than 25%. More to the point, whatever the percentage is, I'm wondering if GON is part of that group, or if I just approached it badly. On a different level, I suspect that GON is part of that group, but thought the attempt was worth the effort if only to confirm my suspicions. However, (with a nod to the lemon juice) my test isn't conclusive if I don't know how to do it correctly, i.e. if I don't know that I don't know how to do it right. All this said, I may just adopt the second approach, although to be fair, I'm not all that interested in 911 conspiracies, but I am interested in when the technique of playback can be effective.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 17:21, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

If you ask someone in dispute resolution to WP:ENEMY and they refuse to try, then they are either inherently or by choice part of the first group. It's an instant test.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:31, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Lucas

Sigh [3] William M. Connolley (talk) 18:22, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks; As for insight to editor POV I see why you called attention (I always check contribs myself). On the other hand... despite the poor writing and lack of an RS the gist of that edit could be factually correct; I have no reason to know either way. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:28, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Vandalism

Hello, I'm Cole132132. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions because it didn't appear constructive. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! —Preceding undated comment added 22:59, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

The section heading you have selected violates our rule about assuming good faith. Please direct any further comments to the article talk page. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:12, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Youre reason is incorrect, out of no good faith nor reason was my contribution undone. Technically you have violated good faith in being agressive towards newcomers.Cole132132 (talk) 23:19, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Your comment at User talk:KimDabelsteinPetersen

As I wrote there, I don't want my discussion with KimDabelsteinPetersen to be sidelined. Should we continue you discussing what you started there [4]? --Ronz (talk) 20:04, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Re Two articles I created by accident

Speedy deletion nomination of NewsAndEventsGuy/Mich-IP

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on NewsAndEventsGuy/Mich-IP, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to have no meaningful content or history, and the text is unsalvageably incoherent. If the page you created was a test, please use the sandbox for any other experiments you would like to do.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^{Talk Email} 13:24, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of NewsAndEventsGuy/MichiganExternalLinkSpammer

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on NewsAndEventsGuy/MichiganExternalLinkSpammer requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^{Talk Email} 13:24, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

User pages in mainspace

Hi. No doubt you meant the two pages listed above to be in your user space, so I have moved them to:

• User:NewsAndEventsGuy/Mich-IP
• User:NewsAndEventsGuy/MichiganExternalLinkSpammer

though after moving it and removing the db tag it had attracted, I see the second one is actually blank. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 14:12, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much, that's indeed what I meant to do.... now how do I delete the blanked page in my user space? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:33, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

"that damn ocean?"

Are you new to Wikipedia? I'm not sure what you are trying to do with your suggestion: "suggest you read this before you get too crazy over Hansen's paper." I had added a recent statement by James Hansen on Global Warming matters, which was promptly deleted without discussion. Why are you trying to draw me into a scientific debate when my edit was simply a recent on-topic news item about James Hansen? Your opinion, and mine, doesn't matter on Wikipedia. My edit was on-topic and supported by a third party source. Did you want to discuss the quality of the source? Or what? Santamoly (talk) 15:58, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

It was just an FYI, in case you decide to pursue BRD at this article talk page thread. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:22, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Here is the archive link NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:26, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

JJ

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding a hostile editing environment. The thread is "User:J._Johnson_-_hostile_environment.". Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elvey (talk • contribs)

With others, April 14ish

Hi Guy! I'm sorry, but I really don't think this comment as useful, especially not on the article talk page. One can be of different opinions regarding the value of JJ's edit, but I really see no possible benefit from discussing this on the article talk page. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:36, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm with Stephan. And just to pile on: I notice you archived the thread on your talk page where I've been accumulating diffs showing your battleground attitude reads weirdly: you're really claiming to have been "accumulating diffs showing [JJ]s battleground attitude" on *his* talk page, and then complaining when he gets rid of them? William M. Connolley (talk) 21:53, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Awhile back there was a short piece in Science mag about an office coffee service that operated on the honor system. Users were asked to toss change in the can to support the service, only no one did. As an experiment, someone took a blow up of a human face, cut out the eyes, and posted them to the wall above the service area. Suddenly, donations went into the can! Posting on the article page is analogous to the eyes in this story.

However, since you two guys don't like that, I will respect your wishes and stop doing it. However, I hope you also talk to JJ about his battleground attitude, because I am not promising to refrain from asking for enforcement against him also. He's been in the way of my efforts to make constructive progress too often.

WMC, if you're implying it is bad behavior on my part to post diffs to what I see as JJ's battleground conduct on JJ's page, tough. I mean, I could have instead chosen to chronicle those diffs secretly and then fire a boatload of evidentiary diffs all at once at WP:AE, right? How would you rather be treated if it were you? With secretly-amassed diffs being dumped on your head in an unexpected formal proceeding, or by being contacted about those diffs via your talk page? Sure, JJ can remove them per WP:OWNTALK. And people in that office can take down the cut-out eyes, and then keep drinking coffee without contributing. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:08, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

PS, in case any visitors here missed it, with respect to the backstory (Robinlarson (talk · contribs)'s troubling behavior), this ANI appears to have been more effective than piling on. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:31, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

I think it's a bit early to credit the warning, given that Robinlarson has, as of now, not made any contributions since April 11th. As for "piling on" - Wikipedia is run on consensus. One way to establish consensus is for everyone to post their opinion. If there are 150 opinions one way, or even 15, then you can talk about piling on. When there are 3 or 4, I usually find another one a useful contribution to establish or gauge consensus. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:06, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

(A) Yes it's early. And the timing might be a coincidence. But until there is contrary evidence, the timing says all to me..... They posted once and only once about an hour after my ANI and attendant FYI on their talk page. Presumably, they posted, saw my comment, and vamoosed. The deal was sealed when an official ARBCC notice went on their talk page a couple hours later. They've been silent ever since. There could be another explanation, but per Occam's Razor I will need other evidence to think the ANI I filed was not the determining factor.

(B)As for consensus, that certainly applies to discussions of sources and text. Only JJ was (needlessly) agreeing with the assessment that another editor is too uneducated on the issue to contribute. Which certainly appeared to be true. But in my experience it's ineffective, laborious, and unpleasant for lots of other would-be editors when we approach such things by attacking WP:RANDY directly, instead of giving him the rope to hang himself through FOCCing and DR.

(C)Finally, Stephan, you're an ed that ranks among the highest on my respect-o-meter, so I hesitate to challenge you with this but here goes.... You scolded me for discussing behavior on the article talk page. JJ was talking about behavior on the article talk page. Did you scold him, or only me? He was agreeing with you after all, so I was just wondering if the goose and gander are in the same boat here?

In my closing here, unless something new comes up, WP:FOC .... WP:FOC.....WP:FOC....WP:FOC....... I ain't gonna apologize for complaining when JJ does not do that, and I very well may complain formally if he does not stop. Since I believe in prevention, not punishment, it would be of more help, perhaps, if you try to mentor him also. Since my efforts have run out of patience maybe fresh blood would help, especially in terms of that consensus you were just speaking about?

Whether he accepts any advice you offer is up to him. But I stand by my opinion he needs it.

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:33, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, thanks for the compliment. Of course, there is always the important point that JJ was agreeing with me, and hence was right. More seriously, I don't think these comments are primarily on RL's conduct, but rather on his (or her) competence. Of course there is a lot of wiggle room here - "the stuff you are adding would only be added by an idiot" is not grammatically a personal attack (hey, I only comment on the stuff added!), but the distinction will probably (and rightfully) be lost on most. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 05:54, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Another round with JJ

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Result, I'll stop complaining about JJ's behavior that I find troubling, unless at some point in the future, I feel a need to do so via formal DR proceedings.

---

I have been rather mystified and distressed by NAEG's repeated complaints of what he terms "piling on", so I welcome this discussion. And hope for resolution.

NAEG, your perspective seems to be that I was "agreeing with the assessment that another editor is too uneducated on the issue to contribute". That was not my intent. Most certainly I was not commenting on another editor's behavior. Even to the extent that Stephan commented on competence (I don't see where conduct was touched upon), my intent was not to "pile on" in that regard, but to move beyond the current instance and look at the problem generally. Even if my comment is taken back to a specific editor, I do not see (so show me?) anything in the nature of a grudge, personal conflict, etc., as would constitute WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior. The essence of my comment (and implicit criticism) is that we here, collectively, may fail to recognize the basis of certain problems, and thereby do a disservice to ourselves and the "Randys". (In this regard I even feel sympathetic to the latter.)

NAEG, that you feel it necessary to document my supposed bad behavior rather makes me feel you are "out to get me" (raising the very battleground feeling you complain of). You have said that I "have been in [your] way ... too often" — is that the real problem? Should we discuss that? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:41, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

(A)"Piling on" was your own self-characterization of one of your behavioral patterns. I thought I saw that pattern being repeated in this DIFF though I could be wrong on that.

(B)What you said and whether I am wrong about (A) above is irrelevant to the big picture in (A) above. Being a minor DIFF I decline to analyze how we went from your remark to this thread absent some formal proceeding.

(C)Just for the record, I decline the suggestion that I'm hounding you. Our watchlists must overlap a lot because I don't watch your contribs.

(D)Going forward, I have no current reason to file a formal complaint on you JJ. And since you think my trying to call your attention to troubling comments by you on your talk page is hounding, I guess I will give up and instead follow my own advice. But since giving you a talk page nudge about it is unwelcome, in the future my Plan-B will have to be one of the more formal DR levers. Hopefully no new reason to do that will present itself. But I will say that when I sought that ARBCC clarification recently you were lucky the ed that complained about you did not do so more skillfully, because you left plenty of DIFFs for them to build a solid complaint. Is it too much to ask that you just stay civil and FOC no matter how irritating some future 3rd party might be? That's what this whole thread is all about - prevention.

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:33, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Re your "C": I have not said that you are "hounding" me. I said that I feel that you are "out to get me". (Allowing that is my personal viewpoint, and if on some point I have misunderstood something I welcome clarification.) A view which seems credible enough when you threaten to take me to "one of the more formal DR levers" for unspecified future behavior.

Please note that I do not object to a talk page nudge. What disturbs me is that you are not only making complaints that rather baffle me, but you are doing it repeatedly. My impression is that there is a deeper motivation. Possibly (hopefully?) only philosophical, but you seem to be making a personal issue out of it.

Your repeated accusations of WP:battleground behavior, lacking any demonstration that I have anywhere held a grudge, imported personal conflicts, etc. towards you, RL, or any other editor, is troubling. Perhaps some other editor would advise us both on whether these accusations are themselves "battleground", or not.

As you have stated that you are "building a record" (as the lawyers put it), I would document where this matter seems to start. I believe that was with a reply you made to someone else at Talk:Global warming controversy (see bottom of Talk:Global warming controversy/Archive 10#Reason?), to which I agreed. You then commented at my talk page (see User_talk:J. Johnson/Archive_2#.3E20) with the words (first use): "Must you pile on?" To which I, using your term, replied that "sometimes it seems that [a] little piling-on is needed". You then stated: "I think you are convinced we can bully our way to consensus", which is a mischaracterization of my views and comments. (More discussion followed, but no resolution.) ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:16, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.