User talk:J. Johnson/Archive 2

Repeated questions at Talk:List of scientists...

"were the previous discussions of notability not adequate for you?" Obviously, the previous discussions were not adequate. Otherwise we could simply point to sources demonstrating notability and be done with it. That's how it goes when notability is established.

"If not, then in what particulars are they inadequate?" Obviously, we've been unable to create a simple list of sources that show notability, nor are we able to agree to the previous ones offered. --Ronz (talk) 20:11, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Answering these questions should be done at the 'Talk:List of...' page. But here perhaps I might offer a suggestion or two regarding process? E.g., "obviously" is almost always a bad sign, as it is usually used in the sense of "not needing further explanation". ("It's obvious!!!") Unfortunately, what's "obvious" for you is not so obvious for others. That those discussions were inadequate is largely becasue you have not adequately shown the rest of us exactly what you mean. E.g., you seem to be saying that there should be a list of specific sources authoritatively stating that this exact topic ("List of scientists opposing...") is notable, AND that no such list exists. Can you see that there are two points there? The latter might part seems evident (not quite the same as "obvious"), but the former part (the should be) is not "obvious". (And distinctly dubious.) If you would be more particular to these kinds of details, and show us what you think is so "obvious", I think you [would] get a lot further. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 17:32, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

I didn't answer there because I saw no reason to do so. We were discussing the topic and no one was able to do what I've come to expect when there is clear notability, "simply point to sources demonstrating notability and be done with it."

I'm saying that notability needs to be clearly established, and I'm not the only one doing so. Is that not clear? --Ronz (talk) 17:51, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

You saw no reason to do so because it was "obvious" — right? What you miss is that in order to convince others you have to go by what they see as reasonable. That you see "no reason to do so" is because you are looking at it from your POV — and as you are already convinced, sure, there is no reason to further convince yourself. Until you learn to recognize other points of view you are going to be frustrated. It's sort of like something not working because the batteries are in backwards — and your response is just to keep adding more batteries. Wrong "solution". ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:14, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

I'd rather just follow WP:CON, WP:DR, and WP:TALK.

When there's a discussion going on, how is it helpful to repeatedly and persistently ask if the previous discussions on the topic weren't enough? You're so caught up in what my perspective and assumptions might be that you're not participating in the discussion. --Ronz (talk) 00:25, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

How is it helpful to "repeatedly and persistently" not answer the questions others have? Well, your answer (above) is that you see "no reason to do so". Which may seem valid, even "obvious", from your "perspective and assumptions". But that is the problem: you are caught up in your own perspective and assumptions; you don't seem to realize that these are not obvious to others. You seem unable to explain your own perspective (or your skewed interpretation of several principles), and seem unaware that other people have different perspectives and assumptions. Your attitude is infantile, and you don't seem smart enough to realize that this persistent failure of communication ought to be grounds for reconsidering whether you need to explain anything. Do that, and we might have a basis of communication. Otherwise you're just fanning air. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:05, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

If an editor is truly interested in being involved in the discussion, they don't repeatedly ask why an ongoing discussion is happening. Consensus can change. If there are points made from previous discussions that aren't being addressed, editors bring them up. The repeated questions just make it seem that consensus cannot change and that attempts at discussing them are inappropriate. --Ronz (talk) 16:51, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

How about getting your head out of where ever you've stuffed it? You really need to learn that if you want to change consensus you need to change minds, which includes answering reasonable questions. Until then I don't believe there is any point in continuing this discussion. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:36, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

"You really need to learn that if you want to change consensus you need to change minds'" Incorrect, or at least you're assuming so much as your statement is useless in this and most any other context. More importantly, you appear fixated on getting other editors to change their behavior to your preferences. Good luck with that! --Ronz (talk) 16:03, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

No, I am not "fixated" on "other" editors. I have been very focused on trying to show you why you have not been (and will not be) successful in changing consensus. You seem to think everyone ought to fall in line with your preferences, solely because you want it so. ("Good luck with that!") I have been trying to HELP YOU to see why that doesn't work, and how might you even go about matters more successfully. But as I can't even get your attention — there is no point in continuing.

Don't bother replying, as I will only delete it. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:33, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Your personal opinion of the Lead discussion

Please stop hatting [1] [2] [3] [4] the section and summarizing it with your personal opinion of the discussion. Such edits are dismissive of all the editors contributions to that discussion and violate the policies and guidelines for use of article talk pages, building consensus, and participating in disputes. --Ronz (talk) 17:05, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

So you are wrapping yourself in the mantle of "all the editors"? In fact, there have been no contributions to that discussion to dismiss. It is also very grand of you to cast aspersions at me when you are the one that "sees no reason" to explain these phantom problems you tendentiously harp on. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:15, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Citation variations

J. Johnson, I've comment at Wikipedia talk:Citing sources about the citation variation issue at Earthquake prediction. You may wish to comment there. Ego White Tray (talk) 23:22, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the notice. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:25, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

What is "adequate proof"?

Ianmos Inamos asked here:

Question - If I believe I have shown adequate proof but you believe I havent, and you do not show how it is ot adequate, how is it decided if the proof is adequate or not. More so, how do I know if my proof is inadequate at all?

Inamos: You asked (essentially), how do you persuade someone? That's a good a question, a most excellent question. Because something that many editors (and random passers-by) around here seem to not understand is that the basis of consensus is not how firmly convinced you are, but whether others are convinced. And if they are not — well, that is where persuasion comes in. How to persuade people is the topic of rhetoric, about which many books have been written.

You asked specifically about what constitutes "adequate proof". Now "proof", which involves notions of absolute truth, is not quite the proper concept here; what we want is "adequate persuasion". As to what is adequate, that depends on the person you are trying to persuade. Lest you think I am being unfair, let's reverse the situation and consider why I was unpersuasive in trying to persuade you. The subsequent poll certainly seems to be decisive evidence you were unpersuasive, that your "proofs" were inadequate. But prior to that, why did you think otherwise? Why were my explanations inadequate? What "proofs" would it have taken to convince you that you were not entirely persuasive?

~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:44, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Adequate proof is provided by whisky, Absolute proof by vodka. On a different topic, Hockey stick controversy#Principal components analysis methodology covers red noise etc., as requested. . dave souza, talk 14:53, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

But beer is merely persuasive? Well, if only you would deliver some of this proof.... :-) ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:08, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Just to point it out, it does not satisfactorily answer the original question. I remain unanswered as a whole.

Also the poll looks like the community agrees on having SE at the top of the various languages, if not on the other questions Inamos (talk) 17:25, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

You asked: "how is it decided if the proof is adequate or not?" And I have suggested that one measure of "adequate" is whether the person addressed is persuaded. Well, your original arguments did not persuade me, so by that criterion: not adequate. However, it seems you really want to go a little deeper, and understand why I was not persuaded. Which is great, but it seems you are not satisfied with my statement of my position (in the original discussion). So at this point I have to ask you: why are you not satisfied? Or as I put it just above: why are (were?) you not persuaded that you were not entirely persuasive? Don't just tell me that you are unsatisfied; show me why. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:38, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Engaging with you to address your concerns

Tendentious waste of time. I would just delete all this but it seems necessary to document it in very likely event Ronz claims he has "engaged" and answered question.

So, I'd like to address all your concerns about all my contributions to Talk:List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming. Your most recent comment asks for further engagement and answers to questions. How shall we start? --Ronz (talk) 17:14, 9 December 2012 (UTC) How should I count the ways? Well, backing off from the discussion at List... is a good start. Going to WP:AN/EW was, frankly, an error. Your acknowledgment here that you should not have done so is a positive step; may I suggest that saying so at WP:AN/EW would be better? And if you want to really help calm matters you might consider a short apology to WMC for being over hasty. Strictly speaking, my last comment (that you referred to) does not ask for "further engagement and answers to questions." I have previously, and repeatedly, asked for answers from you, but I have rather given up on that. And like all the other editors, I am entirely wearied of discussing "notability" of the List in any context. I am also doubtful of spending any time on you. But as you asked nicely, sure, let's give it a try. You should note that whatever point or purpose you had in mind for the notability discussions (yes, plural) was long ago overwhelmed by a failure in discussion. Particularly, your behavior in not responding to reasonable questions, continually kiting off in new directions, and failure to recognize when the discussion has died. Indeed, I am hard put to think of what your points were or where you were trying to get to. What has happened is this: you have so irked pretty nearly everyone present that any discussion with you is tainted. (What is called "poisoning the well.") Unless, and until, you acknowledge a problem in how you have proceeded, and demonstrate a radically changed approach, I would strongly suggest that you not return to that discussion. Or even to that article. If you recognize and acknowledge that your approach has not been successful (and, frankly, was just pissing off everyone), then I would be willing to offer some suggestions how you might do better. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:11, 9 December 2012 (UTC) Thanks for responding. I'm here trying to discuss the matters with you, I'm not continuing the discussions on the article talk page, and I'm trying to find solutions. You are unhappy with how I've participated in the discussions, and have given up with me. Is that the gist of it then? --Ronz (talk) 19:55, 10 December 2012 (UTC) I wouldn't say that I have given up on you entirely, else we would not be having this discussion. But it would be futile to push the last discussion. Even if you wanted to change your approach (behavior), your history has left such a strong bad taste that if you re-engage there will be instant resentment. So while we could examine (e.g.) why previous discussions of notability were not adequate for you, I am reluctant to do so because you might just take fire again. If you want to resolve any issues, I suggest we start with your apparent belief that the notability discussion was not dead. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:42, 10 December 2012 (UTC) Thanks. I'm a bit too busy at the moment to dive into this, but I appreciate the response and think it would be useful to discuss this. --Ronz (talk) 18:04, 13 December 2012 (UTC) This is not an appropriate place to analyze specific articles on that score, per WP:MULTI. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:50, 13 December 2012 (UTC) I am not proposing to analyze any articles here, nor even whether the discussion alluded is dead (that is a given), but Ronz's belief regarding that discussion. As to MULTI: perhaps you refer to the multiple discussions Ronz has started on our several user_talk pages? While these have common elements, I think he is asking for individual responses. I think you and I would agree he's been rather annoying, but if he is willing to discuss it I'm willing to give him the space. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:49, 13 December 2012 (UTC) "...the notability discussion was not dead." It wasn't. It isn't. I really don't understand why anyone would think otherwise. All I can think is that there are unwritten assumptions in the statement. Yes, people were tired and frustrated with much of the discussion, but that's something else completely from my perspective. --Ronz (talk) 18:07, 15 December 2012 (UTC) And there is the problem: you think the notability discussion isn't dead, while I, and everyone else there, thinks it is dead. So how is this to be resolved? Well, consider the following hypothetical exchange: You: no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no!!! Me: yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes!!! Does that really work? Not really. So what we have to do is look at why we believe "no" or "yes". (Presumably we each are acting from honest belief and a desire for resolution, not just trolling.) My reasoning is something like this: "dead" means the discussion isn't (hasn't been) going anywhere, as evidenced by lack of results in a long time, lack of substantive comments, lack of any activity for days at a time. You would have to explain your reasoning, but possibly it might that there are recent comments, thus showing that the discussion continues. Then we would have two distinct positions to examine. I would say that as this is the 15th already, and the last comment in that discussion was on the 10th, and the last comment of any substance (I skip over the discussion of whether you are stonewalling, etc.) was on the 4th, I say: 1) the facts are no activity whatsoever for 5 days, and no substantive comments in 11, and 2) this constitutes inactivity. Disregarding for the moment the particular conclusion here, do you understand how this kind of argumentation works? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:37, 15 December 2012 (UTC) I'm not sure what your point is. You've abstracted the situation to the point that it's useless from my perspective. My concern is that you're making assumptions that have yet to be expressed... This abstraction doesn't seem to be bringing anything to light. I'm unaware of any policies/guidelines that specify that discussions are over because of the amount of time since the last comment. Likewise, there isn't much written that I could say corresponds to assessments of "substance", but then the discussion is so abstract at this point it's hard to tell. Myself, I don't like repeating myself, so I'd say your "no, no, no" comments misrepresent the situation. If you're simply asking how to resolve disputes, then the answer is WP:DR. --Ronz (talk) 03:49, 18 December 2012 (UTC) I could respond to your several points, but you opened this discussion saying you would like to address my concerns. Only, you are not doing that. Telling me that you don't agree with me is not addressing my concern. Telling me that you see no reason in answering a question (as you have before) is beside the point — I see a reason, and that is sufficient for my concerns. I am not interested in debating any of this. If you do not address my concerns then the basis of this discussion is false, your desire to engage is suspect, and this discussion is over. BTW, do note that the emphasis of WP:DR is to resolve disputes through civil discussion and consensus-building. And my chief concern, both here and at the notability discussion, is that you fail to engage in discussion. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:47, 19 December 2012 (UTC) "Telling me that you don't agree..." Sorry you feel that way. It's not that I disagree, it's that I don't understand your comments. I'm trying to make sense of them. I've tried to look at your comments in light of our policies and guidelines. Sorry that this approach did not work. --Ronz (talk) 02:42, 20 December 2012 (UTC) Let us say, rather, that this endeavor has not yet achieved fruition. Okay? And working this out, here, would go a long way to easing matters at "List of...". If you are still good for this, let's try this: tell me (briefly!) what you meant by "the answer is WP:DR." What do you see as the key aspects of how that should work? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:34, 20 December 2012 (UTC) Seems like one would ask a question; if unsatisfied with the answer one would say as little as possible while asking again; if still unsatisfied one would say as little as possible while invoking the simplest of the WP:DR processes, and one works their way up the levels of DR complexity while saying as little as possible outside of that process until the process reaches its conclusion, whatever that may be. There are questions I have asked Ronz at the article talk page, and I have agreed to wait for answers until whenever he returns to that talk page.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:41, 20 December 2012 (UTC) And in the notability discussion on the article talk page we asked certain questions repeatedly, with no satisfactory answers. I am hoping that we might be able to resolve some of these issues of process before returning to the article talk page. I certainly want to avoid the situation where nothing can be resolved except by escalation to the highest levels. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:38, 21 December 2012 (UTC) Do you want me to respond, or is this just an aside in response to NewsAndEventsGuy? --Ronz (talk) 03:58, 23 December 2012 (UTC) Ronz: no, don't respond; that's an aside between me and NAEG. BTW, don't bug him on his talk page, okay? Even here I would suggest you not respond to him. I am fine with him commenting, but as you opened this discussion to address my concerns I would appreciate that you stay focused on that. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:38, 23 December 2012 (UTC) "The answer is WP:DR," meaning I think that WP:DR is extremely useful to help resolve disputes and should be followed. Further, as I've pointed out, I find that grounding discussions by referring to relevant policies/guidelines helps those discussions go more smoothly, as well as being almost an important part of consensus-making. --Ronz (talk) 17:55, 21 December 2012 (UTC) Great. I, too, think WP:DR should be followed. What particular point of that policy do you believe is pertinent to the notability discussion? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:00, 21 December 2012 (UTC) I don't know what you mean given the lack of specifics. If you want to just talk in abstractions like this, what answer can I give besides "all of it?" This doesn't seem at all useful from my perspective. --Ronz (talk) 03:58, 23 December 2012 (UTC) You are amazing. It is your "lack of specifics" that is the key problem here. When I provided (15 Dec.) specific statements of fact for discussion you responded that I had "abstracted the situation to the point that it's useless from my perspective." No, wrong. I keep trying to get specifics from you, and you keep waving your hands, throwing out generalities like "the answer is WP:DR". And when I ask what particular point of that policy you believe is pertinent here you say: "all of it". Do you even understand what "specific" and "abstract" mean? One of my specific concerns here (which you want to address, right?) is that you do not answer specific reasonable questions. Like this: what specific point of WP:DR should we be following here? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:43, 23 December 2012 (UTC) The question could be interpreted to assume that portions of WP:DR are more important or pertinent than others. I don't agree with such assumptions. So we're currently engaging on this talk page. That follows WP:DR, especially Wikipedia:Dr#Discuss_with_the_other_party. No attempts have been made to escalate any of these disputes to noticeboards or the like beyond my putting my foot down to the edit-warring by the one editor. So what else can we focus on? Perhaps the summary of WP:DR: "Resolve disputes calmly, through civil discussion and consensus-building on relevant discussion pages. There are several available options to request opinions from editors outside the dispute: other dispute resolution mechanisms include requests for comments, mediation or, after all other methods have been tried, arbitration." So to get very specific, if there's one point that I think it would help to focus upon better at this time, it would be consensus-building. Of course, in the past, what little references I've made to WP:DR have been to WP:FOC, so obviously I think that is important. I don't believe any of this would have happened if editors simply had followed WP:FOC, but that's all far behind us now. --Ronz (talk) 17:48, 24 December 2012 (UTC) Ah, a specific! (We will note in passing that focusing on this specific does not mean it is more important than any other part of WP:DR.) Well, actually two specifics — consensus building, and WP:FOC — but let's start with the first. So how do we achieve consensus? By discussion, of course. But how does discussion work when editors differ on their conclusions? By explaining their reasoning, by pointing to specific examples. And here we come right up to one my principal concerns: when the rest of us had questions about your reasoning you refused to explain it, nor would you answer specific questions. That you "saw no reason to do so" (above, 25 Oct.) is beside the point; the rest of us wanted discussion, and you refused. Such comments as you have made were not responsive, and so did not constitute discussion. You are thus in violation of WP:DR. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:41, 24 December 2012 (UTC) I didn't refuse. What I did was approach the questions multiple ways, many times, rather than repeating myself over and over. If I'm not mistaken, you too feel endless repetition is less than helpful, or perhaps I misinterpreted [5]. --Ronz (talk) 17:31, 26 December 2012 (UTC) Quite the contrary: you have refused to answer specific questions. (E.g., here and here.) So we have yet another layer of dispute as to whether you have failed to discuss in that you refuse to address reasonable questions. So what does WP:DR suggest? Third party input? The notability discussion already has third, fourth, and even fifth party comments, all concurring that you have refused to answer various questions. Plus there is your own admission (above): "I didn't answer there...." Do you now require an RfC on a point that is painfully obvious to everyone else? You have said (repeatedly) that you don't want to repeat yourself, but you have yet to answer various questions even once. (No? Disproving my assertion is very simple: provide some diffs showing where you actually answered the questions presented.) My concern here (and you are going to address that, right?) is your continuing failure to engage with other editors in trying to resolve why your view of reality is radically discordant with everyone else's. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:49, 26 December 2012 (UTC) Sorry, but I don't understand what you feel is being demonstrated with the diffs. You still think I've not answered your questions? Here is my initial answer. Here is a subsequent answer from this page. Does that settle it? If not, why? --Ronz (talk) 17:33, 29 December 2012 (UTC) Yes, I still think you have not answered my (or anyone elses's) questions, or at least not in in meaningful way. As an illustration, your "initial answer" (above) was: "I think we need clear-cut demonstration of notability. Is Aprock's list of potential sources all we have then?" The first part is an opinion, with nothing to say on how that article might fall short, nor what you deem to be a "clear-cut demonstration of notability." (Which led to further questions, which you evaded.) The second part was not an answer, only a question. Your "answer" is no answer at all. Your second "answer" is comes closer, but was from this discussion, not at the notability discussion at List of.... There that might have been a half-decent answer, but here my question would be: why didn't you say so there? Even so, it still fails to answers the questions I specifically pointed to. E.g.: by what criteria would you accept that WP:N has been met? But all this is actually rather off-topic. Before you begin arguing that you have answered my questions, please reconsider the title with which you opened this discussion — "Engaging with you to address your concerns" — and your opening statement: "I'd like to address all your concerns ...." Note that arguing with me is not addressing my concerns. I responded on the assumption that you were acting in good faith. If you are only going to argue than you were deceitful, and this discussion is over. My concerns include: 1) your continual failure to adequately answer reasonable questions; 2) your denial (in the face of all evidence) that the notability discussion is dead; and 3) your continual arguing. That (e.g.) you think you have answered one or more questions is actually beside the point. The point is that I think you have not. If you would address my concerns you need to accept, arguendo, those points as postulates. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:29, 29 December 2012 (UTC) "..at least not in in meaningful way" I've answered them. That's clear. It's just not to your satisfaction. The proper response then is not to say the questions have not been answered, but to seek elaboration and explanation. Do we agree? --Ronz (talk) 17:42, 31 December 2012 (UTC) As I just said (do you have a WP:HEARing problem?): that you think you have answered one or more questions is actually beside the point. That you have not answered any questions to my satisfaction is exactly the point, and my concern. That you repeatedly fail to hear that, and continually argue the point, is a strong indication that you are not "engaging" in good faith. You had ample opportunity to engage, you did not, so now I declare this discussion close. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:27, 31 December 2012 (UTC) Sorry you feel this way and have decided to close this discussion based upon our agreeing?! I find such agreements to be signs of engagement, understanding, and progress. If you want to continue at any point in the future, let me know. --Ronz (talk) 00:59, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

>20

Hi JJ, Feedback..... there have probably been 20 times or more when something seems to me to be (A) finished or (B) zero-ed in to key issues, and then some commment from you appears, which to me appears to add snide-ry, delight in battling, nothing really substantive, but it halts or diverts the converation. Meaning this as constructive feedback, I often find myself asking "Must you pile on?" But I try to assume good faith and stay out of they way.... and then I watch anthills sometimes become mountains, or what might have been constructive talking halts altogether, and the crux issue(s) are left behind. So please work harder to review each draft post to see if it is really adding to the reasoning, or is just adding verbage to wade through. You asked me once for input on a dispute, so please consider this as a reminder or continuation of that earlier conversation. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:02, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't really take delight in battling. But sometimes it seems that little piling-on is needed to insure that an issue/discussion put to bed stays in bed. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:34, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

But piling on does not do that. The only thing that really does that is (A) good reasoning and (B) effective use of WP:DR, ANI, and ARB. Piling on makes the effective tools less effective. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:02, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

What you say has several facets of interest. I am particularly intrigued with the notion of right reason and effective use of rules (structure) being a sufficient basis argument. I admire that as an ideal, but to me it seems insufficiently effective. Mind, I am not saying abandon reason, or violate the rules; I say that reason is a fragile construction that needs to be supported. Like the typical "says so / says not" confrontation: in an ideal world a single, well-stated reason should, on its own merits, suffice to turn around a horde. In actuality it often comes down to "that's just your opinion". So where one side seems preponderantly "reasonable" I think it is very useful for one or two other editors to "pile-on" to the extent of concurring. (Sort of like a mini-sampling of prospective consensus.) On the other hand, yes, there comes a point where it is not necessary, and perhaps not even useful, to say more. Perhaps you think I tend to overshoot that? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:28, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Since you invite my opinion, I think you are convinced we can bully our way to consensus and I am unlikely to persuade you to see piling on in any other light. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:49, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Whoaa! Not so fast! I said nothing about bullying; I certainly do not accept that as a means of attaining consensus, nor as a substitute for it. I think we may have different concepts of what constitutes "piling on"; perhaps we need to clarify that? E.g.: if some editor persists in some poorly supported view, and someone else (say yourself) provides a thorough, even erudite, rebuttal, that could still be perceived by the first editor as "just one other's personal view, no better than mine". At such a point what is needed is not another rebuttal, but a show of support, such as myself and a couple of other editors "chiming in" (perhaps that sounds better than "piling on"?) with comments that we concur. That would be a rough indication (short of a poll) of how consensus is shaping up. Surely not bullying. Right? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:16, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

You said, "different concepts of what constitutes "piling on"; perhaps we need to clarify that?" I do not think we need to clarify that. I already defined what I was talking about in the first sentence in this thread. I characterized many of your comments, at least as I see them, and you have not contested my characterization. Instead you said "sometimes it seems that (a) little piling-on is needed to insure that an issue/discussion put to bed stays in bed." A simple "agree" is enough to show support. In my view, you pile on with a WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude which often, in my view, derails discussion about the meat of the matter. Feedback mode off, use it or not. I'm departing from this conversation. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:27, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

It seems to me you have mis-characterized my comments. I did not contest this before because I wanted to understand where you are coming from (and not come across as combative). That should not be misconstrued as any kind of agreement with or support of a concept that you have not defined, and where we do need clarification. I am disappointed that you will not be following through on this, but so be it. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:09, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

In reply to your question here, I suggest you suck it up and just take responsibility for your behavior, regardless what else has been said by others. Everyone's opinion counts in consensus. Unpersuasive people's opinions just aren't persuasive. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:23, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm fine with my behavior, aside from wasting time and patience on idiots, that is. I will leave that to you. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:42, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Battleground alert. Again. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 05:32, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

December 2012

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, please note that there is a Manual of Style that should be followed to maintain a consistent, encyclopedic appearance. Deviating from this style, as you did in Puget Sound faults, disturbs uniformity among articles and may cause readability or accessibility problems. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.

I know the reasons for not putting excessively wide images article bodies were explained to you repeatedly, and in detail, at Talk:Puget Sound faults. Even if you can't understand these reasons, please respect the consensus behind Wikipedia's guidelines, such as MOS:IMAGE Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:57, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you

Readin: I do mind your alterations at Talk:Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change, but not a big deal. It does seem to me that you're rather zealous in encouraging 72* to an end you surely know is not supportable. Is that really wise? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 18:48, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

March 2013

Please do not attack other editors. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Apropos your use of epithets such as 'ding-a-ling' diff. --Elvey (talk) 07:08, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Ding-a-ling, eh? As I recall that was back last December when I said the fringe material you want to include at Earthquake prediction is subject to the WP standard of WP:WEIGHT, to which your considered response was:

Your answer IS nonsensical; MY PREDICTION OF THE FUTURE WAS ACCURATE, when I wrote, "Of course I bet someone's going to trot out the same nonsense argument that these don't help to demonstrate t notability of the study, because they don't evidence "scientific notability", logic be damned. Sigh." OMG, I can predict the future! </sarcasm> ....

This after you accused me of being part of a tag-team (when some other editor happened to chime in). Then there was your quip about "someone as open-minded as a FOX News anchor." And all along you characterize my objections to your misguided edits as WP:OWN, never mind that seems to be the only reason you are so insistent on including the fringe, unreliable, and totally unnecessary Coren material.

I remind you again: "Accusing someone of making personal attacks without providing a justification for your accusation is also considered a form of personal attack." ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:29, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

AN

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. --Elvey (talk) 03:08, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Closed without action, and archived. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 18:51, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Talk:International Code of Signals

I have replied to your concern about capitalization on this page. If I can be of any further help to you, please feel free to drop me a note. Paul, in Saudi (talk) 13:33, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

AN thread

Although that is closed now, I hope you've picked up some lessons from it. My own experience here and elsewhere is that civility almost always is an advantage when editing. Elvey's lack of it caused him problems with the AN thread. I don't think if he'd been more polite that he'd have managed to get any Admin action, but a reasonable approach by him - and dropping the ban/1RR stuff quickly, might have helped him if he wants to raise an RfC/U about your behavior. It does look to me as though you've got some things to think about. I don't want to get any more involved if I can help it, Elvey's confusion has managed to confuse me enough already. Dougweller (talk) 07:44, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes. And thank you. On a number of other topics I would just walk away, but that topic I want to see through to completion. I have considered complaining about him, but haven't decided if that would result in long-term reduction of exasperation and wasted time. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:15, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

ARBCC clarification request

Hi JJ,

FYI Your name came up, tangentially, in my clarification requested at ARBCC. In my opinion, it would be a mistake to comment on the Elvey-JJ dispute in that proceeding beyond what has already been said.

The issue is whether us lowly editors, involved in climate area, are allowed to template others about ARBCC and then list the notification in the ARBCC enforcment section, just to document that people have received actual notice of the ARBCC decision. If you have comments to add about that, by all means add a statement. But I strongly suggest silence in that forum as regards the Elvey-JJ matter itself. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:17, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, thanks. And why does this remind me of being on the prairie in a lightning storm? :-) ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:04, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Closed without action and archived. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:30, 11 April 2013 (UTC)