A handy collection of useful links.

The canonical forms for citing the IPCC documents are at:

• SAR.
• TAR.
• AR4.
• AR5.

Ask if you have questions or need assistance.

Regarding: Citing sources

What do you think about replacing "Citation Machine" with Citation Generator as proposed on the Talk page?

I'm looking at this with interest. I've been following the degradation of Citation Machine, Easy Bib, etc., thanks to Chegg: basically even though the shell of each of Chegg's acquisitions looks a bit different, the underlying software for using sources appears to be exactly the same. I think few in the high schools and colleges know about this, yet. I’d just like to know your opinion on this and what further action should be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.109.128.108 (talk) 14:02, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. You recently responded to a WT:V discussion about the verifiability of a source’s absence. Can I ask for your thoughts on the rationale at Talk:Jacob Barnett#Source support for lack of publishing/vetting? I’m not asking you to get involved there (you of course may if you want); I’d just like to know your opinion on the arguments presented. Thanks! —67.14.236.50 (talk) 02:01, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For clarity’s sake, here is the article as I first found it. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 02:09, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps not. I doubt that I could make any pertinent comments without studying the discussion, and I am currently rather constrained for time. Sorry. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:58, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All right. Thanks for responding, at any rate! —67.14.236.50 (talk) 23:31, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

	The Barnstar of Good Humor
	This is the funniest thing I've read today. Thank you. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:37, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I loved this second sentence. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:34, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad someone appreciated it. (Thanks.) I've always hated "middle of the road" as a metaphor for moderation. It rather makes me want to laugh and scream at the same time. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 17:32, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	Hi J. Johnson (JJ), Thanks a lot for the great work you do for Wikipedia (articles, pages created), especially the Geology articles. Thanks, 2know4power (talk) 05:20, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		Because this is how to properly close an RfC: careful and detailed analysis of the arguments presented and their bases, with a particular eye to what is best for the encyclopedia and its readers, not just editorial egoes and wikipolitics.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  07:56, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@SMcCandlish: Concur, but see Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)/Archive 22#Recognition for closers, no traction. In my experience, most closes are pretty good and most receive silence (if the closer is lucky). ―Mandruss ☎ 09:27, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can always propose a Closer's Barnstar. I do agree with the old thread's observation that it's a one-sided matter, though I have in fact previously thanked a closer for a superb really-took-the-time close that didn't go my way. I don't agree that "most closes are pretty good", but most of the RfCs I watch are style-and-titles ones, and too many of the closers are partisan and just WP:SUPERVOTING, so my experience of the matter is very skewed. Even outside that sphere, I find many closes to be perfunctory head-counting and, while often not incorrect, it's disappointing and often almost necessarily leads to the issue being re-litigated later.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  04:49, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Even where a result is (by some standard) "not incorrect", the more important consideration is often whether the various parties feel the process was fair. It seems to me that a lot could be said about this, and have been tempted to start a discussion, but haven't had the time to go through the archives and see if it has all been said before. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:01, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, thanks. Frankly, I was figuring I would be satisfied to get off with just silence. Of course, the real test is whether all "sides" find the result to be something they can live with. Perhaps I should keep my head down a while longer? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:27, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Heh.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  04:49, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Both here and here you write I am under a "topic ban". As you know from the ANI result you linked to, that is not the case. I was not banned, I voluntary left the topic. I strongly request that you change the posts to say so. -DePiep (talk) 14:10, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone at that discussion, including the closer, understood the action to be, effectively, a topic ban. Which you voluntarily accepted in lieu of being frog-marched out the door, and possibly incurring a stronger action. And it is understood that if you violate this de facto topic ban there will be consequences. It was to prevent some passing editor from making comments that might entice you to return that I added the notice.

It is rather curious that, given the vast breadth of Wikipedia, you are attracted back here. I suggest you practice resisting that attraction, and find other areas to run through. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:40, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As of this afternoon, there are a handful of uses of short period Mb, which is apparently what the NEIC's PDE uses, and there's just one instance of the broadband MB. Do you know whereabouts in the encyclopedia this is used? Was just reading up about these variations because I will be using the src= field for the first time and wanted to ensure that I'm on the right track before posting a new article. Dawnseeker2000 19:29, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, that's the point and utility of having tracking categories! E.g., at the bottom of Template:M/doc you'll see a link to Category:Articles using templated earthquake magnitude scale. Click on that, and you'll find categories for each of the different scales (and some admin categories). Click on, say, M_b, and, voila!, there is your list of instances. M_B (mB), I see, is used only in Seismic scale, and unlikely to be seen much anywhere except for historical catalogs. But M_b (mb) is starting to collect some documented uses. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:56, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your expansion of Template:M. You may notice that I just fixed a bug in it, which was introduced in this edit. It turns out that DePiep had already fixed the same bug earlier, but that edit undid the fix and restored the bug. It may bear keeping in mind that elegance of code is secondary to its function; or, as you put it in an earlier edit comment, "Please do not break the template simply because you don't like theformat [sic]". I hope that you find my formatting satisfactory. --pmj (talk) 02:30, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. (I think. Envision quizzical expression.) Thanks especially for the note.

I'm not quite certain what you did. The inverted comment style – "--> <!--", with the end-of-lines inside the comments – that DePiep applied wasn't necessary, because the {replace} function takes them all out. I suspect the bug you refer to was due to leading spaces in first column, which could have been simply removed. (They were there because the need for some amount of pretty-printing is deeply ingrained in me.) Well, things seem to be working right, and you didn't go wild with any crazy stuff, so likely good enough. Would you care to advise on another problem? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:49, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to help, though I'm no MediaWiki expert and these templates are pretty advanced. --pmj (talk) 04:12, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So, I went through the whole catalog of articles and added the template. There were a few instances where I thought it might be good to have an option for two eventid's for doublets or sequences. Not that we necessarily have to do that, but that was one thing I was taking notes on. There were really only a handful of times that came up. I think that was a good move and the articles are better because of it. I know that I'll be referring using the links as I (hopefully) get back to creating article content. Dawnseeker2000 02:04, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Dawnseeker2000: Ah, "event ids"? That would be for {{eq-isc-link}}. I took a quick look at your contributions but didn't see what you were working on. (I'm pretty tired right now.) Perhaps you could show me some diffs? I would be interested in seeing how you're using them.

And!!!! I have a pair of citation templates almost ready. See my test area. Still working out some details. And in a couple of months similar templates for USGS. This spring we should be able to start talking about improving the table formats. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 05:20, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Right, I should've started a new section for the work regarding the eq-isc-link template work. Beginning in early December I went through all 800+ earthquake articles and placed the template in the external links section. I was just mentioning that I noticed a few instances where there were doublets or triplets where it occurred to me that we might think about setting the template up to accommodate two event IDs, but I was just thinking out loud. It's fine the way it is. Most of the time if there are bibliography sections for multiple event IDs (for earthquake sequences, for example), the papers that are listed are almost identical. In other words, we're not losing much if anything by just listing one of the events and not both. Let's just move on unless to the newer template for now. Dawnseeker2000 21:14, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In case you might have something to add here. Cheers ☆ Bri (talk) 20:12, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Other than something about the origin or first use of the term, I'd say you have added all that is useful. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 04:31, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I'm messaging to ask whether you might be interested in being an editor for the WikiJournal of Science (www.WikiJSci.org)? It's a journal modelled on the successful Wikipedia-integrated medical journal (www.WikiJMed.org). The editorial board is covers a range of fields and expertise.

It couples the rigour of academic peer review with the extreme reach of the encyclopedia. It is therefore an excellent way to achieve public engagement, outreach and impact public understanding of science (articles often get >100,000 views per year).

Peer-reviewed articles are dual-published both as standard academic PDFs, as well as directly into Wikipedia. This improves the scientific accuracy of the encyclopedia, and rewards academics with citable, indexed publications. It also provides much greater reach than is normally achieved through traditional scholarly publishing.

Based on my experiences, time commitment is pretty flexible. An editor would generally devote 2-10 hours per month to inviting suitable submissions and organise their external peer review:

• Identify fully missing Wikipedia topics and invite academics to write broad review articles on them (e.g. this)
• Identify important, but poorly covered topics and invite experts to update or overhaul them (e.g. this)
• Invite authors of good Wikipedia pages to put their articles through external peer review (like this)
• Possibly implement some figure or gallery review articles (e.g this and this)

Hopefully it will help to get experts, academics and professionals to contribute content to the encyclopedia via a more familiar and cv-rewarding academic journal format.

Anyway, let me know if it's the sort of thing that might interest you. PS. A relevant article in Science.

T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)^talk 04:17, 25 November 2017 (UTC), edited 11:03, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I didn't realize you were on WP; I'll have to take a closer look. Yes, that kind of thing does interest me (and I am flattered that you ask). But, frankly, I am not certain if I am adequately qualified, or have enough time, to do that job properly. Still, I think we do have possible points for collaboration. Let me think on this a bit (maybe two weeks?), and I'll get back to you. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:13, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hah, I like to think of myself as primarily a Wikipedian, but I've ended spending a lot of with the WikiJournals recently. Anyway, feel free to take time to consider. The main activity that would be particularly helpful is in contacting potential expert reviewers (for example for the radiocarbon dating submission). The position of associate editor is a lot more flexible and lower commitment than full board member. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)^talk 05:10, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I realised I missed out some links in the message above, so I've taken the liberty of editing the previous message. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)^talk 11:03, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dug out your comments on the since-deleted ANI post after my response. Appreciated your sentiments. When I first got the notice, my response was "what the heck???" so I was happy to see that I wasn't in trouble. Thanks again. Ckruschke (talk) 19:13, 14 December 2017 (UTC)Ckruschke[reply]

Not deleted, just archived (here). Though as someone once told me: if you're never in trouble, you're probably not pushing hard enough.

In the struggle between quality and anything-goes, WP:OWN seems to be the stick of choice when someone objects to not getting their way. Really deserves a major discussion, but I don't have time for it. So just an ocassional whack at the more prominent instances.

Did you see the edit prior to yours at User talk:CravinChillies, where IP 86.157.17.17 deleted my comment? And then reported me at WP:AIAV for vandalism? She seems to have an attitude problem. But not my concern. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:15, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah - I'm not sure why you would 1) think that the site admins are supposed to handle all problems (like you don't have enough going on anyway), 2) claim sexist bias when the discussion isn't going your way, and 3) have a hissy fit, post a huge diatribe on your Talk page and "leave" Wikipedia when the admins that you ran to rightfully raise the BS flag on your complaint and request that you play nice. I extended an olive branch on her Talk page. Maybe if she decides to come back I can help her temper her preconceived notions. Ckruschke (talk) 19:26, 18 December 2017 (UTC)Ckruschke[reply]

There is also the question of triage. On one hand, an intervention that results in a productive editor would be worthwhile. On the other hand: you can kiss a lot frogs without finding any princes (or princesses). So how much effort is worthwhile? I sure don't know. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:02, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is meticulous, precise in its technical mastery of nuances often ignored and, above all, way beyond the call of duty. I myself learned much from it. I apologize for the irksome worrying of your time this little contretemps occasioned. Thank you.Nishidani (talk) 09:36, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No apology needed! I am not so certain it was as great as you describe, but hopefully it was good enough to prompt some needed corrections. As to duty: I saw a chasm opening under another editor, and my training has been that who ever is closest should respond. (Though if you had responded with the necessary vigor it likely would have been deemed a "personal attack".) Hopefully the good work you are doing hasn't been impaired. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:28, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm Insertcleverphrasehere. J. Johnson, thanks for creating Ali Mirdrekvandi!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. lede sentence is confusing

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse.

— Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 05:31, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

John, I added only the references section. And because also SPIEGEL had an article ( http://www.spiegel.de/wissenschaft/natur/gezeitenkraefte-sonne-und-mond-lassen-kalifornien-erzittern-a-669370.html ), I personally found this a very reasonable addition. For me, it is okay if you reverted my addition.

Please do not add a further reply: No reply needed. --Wikinaut (talk) 01:06, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi J. Johnson, while expanding the 1999 Düzce earthquake I came across ReliefWeb as a resource, particularly for the humanitarian side of earthquakes. Would this be something that could be coded as a template, like the isc one you did? For the recent 2018 Papua New Guinea earthquake their main page for the event is located here. For now I'll just add these as an external link to each article, although probably only for the most damaging ones that require external assistance. Thanks, Mikenorton (talk) 11:06, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly. The first consideration is: what should the resulting citation look like? Given that, slapping together a standardized template is straight-forward. I can't do it right now (I'm rather swamped with work), but if you wanted to lay out some models I'll look at them when I can. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:42, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There's no rush. For the 2018 Papua New Guinea earthquake, I added

Main page for this earthquake on ReliefWeb

to the external links section. The good thing is that for major disasters the links on their main page will continue to be updated until all humanitarian efforts have ceased, possibly years later - see their page on the 2010 Haiti earthquake - [1]. Mikenorton (talk) 21:35, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Check out the brand new {{ReliefWeb-link}} (seen in action here) and see if that works for you. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:58, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Perfect - thanks for your help. It won't get added to all earthquakes obviously, only to those with significant international relief efforts. Cheers, Mikenorton (talk) 10:45, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I can set up an AWB run to check for instances of links to the website and get them replaced. Dawnseeker2000 14:47, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've only done the one so far as I only came across ReliefWeb while expanding the 1999 Duzce article (although that has links in it, just not to the main webpage for the earthquake), but maybe some have already been added by other users. Mikenorton (talk) 15:42, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be of any value to track which articles use this template? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:32, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've only added the one so far, I've got distracted by lots of other stuff, I will start to add it to relevant pages when I'm done with the British earthquakes' list. One thing - I'm not sure that "Report" is the right thing to call the main page on the ReliefWeb website, perhaps just "Page"? Mikenorton (talk) 12:27, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's not clear to me what you are referring to. What "report" links to (?) is not their main page, but the page for a specific report. Are you referring to some other instance of "Report"? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:19, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, the template currently returns the text "ReliefWeb has a report on this event.." with "report" linked to the relevant webpage. That webpage is, however, not a report as such, just a place where all relevant reports are linked to. I was wondering if the template could instead return "ReliefWeb has a page on this event..", thanks Mikenorton (talk) 10:38, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, it's easy enough to change "report" to "page", but I wonder why. And I sense we are not on the same wavelength here. E.g., you say "[t]hat webpage is, however, not a report as such, just a place where all relevant reports are linked to." Well, here is my exemplar: ReliefWeb's main page for this event.. And what I see (besides a doubled period) at the end of that link is not "all relevant reports", but ReliefWeb's specific report, "Papua New Guinea: Earthquakes - Feb 2018". Is this not in accord with what you see? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:24, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the page linked to has a summary of the current situation but also (scrolling down) links to 102 reports, news articles and infographics for the earthquake from a whole series of organisations. The one that I just linked to for the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake and tsunami - links to this page which has links to a further 9,783 other relevant reports etc. - searching through that many reports is a bit of a pain, but at least they're there. Is that any clearer? Mikenorton (talk) 21:07, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that page has a list of links to related pages (in this case, updates), but I deem that to be an adjunct to the report (analogous to the "See also" section in WP), of which the main body is (in the case of New Guinea) the eight paragraphs of "Overview". Whether we take that page to be the report itself, or including the entire hierarchy below it, I think there is enough structure to warrant calling it a report. (Which I think ReliefWeb does, but in a quick look I didn't see it.) ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:43, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For me that importance of this link is to give editors a resource that they can use to follow the development of the relief effort with time, by scanning through the individual reports - this can be done at the time or looking back twenty years. However, I'm not in the end that bothered with exactly what it's called - ReliefWeb I see call it an overview, but I'm not suggesting that as an alternative. Mikenorton (talk) 09:44, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Mikenorton: Don't know if {{ReliefWeb-link}} is on your watchlist, but you might want to check it. We have some IP thinks it ought to be worded differently, and resistant to discussion. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:54, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm happy to see those extra fields being available, but I'm not sure why they're displaying in the infobox for the 1382 Dover Straits earthquake, can I suppress them? Mikenorton (talk) 12:24, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but not yet fully working. (I still have a few burrs to file off, so to speak.) I've just added |pre-1900=yes to the Dover quake, and you can see it suppressed the ANSS field. I'm still working on some of the other details. I'm also about to add some lengthy documentation on all this. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:50, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As ever, no rush, thanks, Mikenorton (talk) 22:39, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Mikenorton: Something very curious here: I can't recreate the problem in either the template's testcases, my sandbox, or draft space: they all work properly. (See Draft:1382 Dover Straits earthquake. Yet I see the same problem at 1356 Basel earthquake. Very curious indeed. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:03, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For me both of those infoboxes show "UTC time" and "local time" event though neither are present in those copies of the infobox template. By changing the date and time to their local fields for the 1356 Basel event, I can get only those fields to display, which is better, but "UTCtime" is always shown. I'll check some others and report back. Mikenorton (talk) 10:47, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I changed a few to include |pre-1900=yes, but only the ISC and ANSS fields are suppressed, the UTCtime, local date and local time all show up even when undefined - see 464 BC Sparta earthquake and 226 BC Rhodes earthquake. Mikenorton (talk)

I believe "Local date" should always be displayed (and implicitly, used) because 1) there is always (and should be) a date, even if it is just a year, and 2) because of the ambiguity and confusion in the use of "Date". That "UTC time" is displayed (even when blank) for pre-1900 events is a bug, which I am working on. Part of the problem is that it happens only in main space, so tracking it down means I am having to play around with production code. Brief episodes of turbulence may be experienced. :-0 ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:48, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed about "local date", but often with the older ones there is no time recorded, so it would be good to have that suppressed as well when nothing is specified in that field. Thanks for your continuing work on this. Mikenorton (talk) 09:29, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. (A subtle error of logic, and some unexpected behavior.) What-you-see now should be what we want, all across the board. Haven't turned on the error messages for not having a timestamp or anss-url; want to work down the backlog significantly first. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:32, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've declined the speedy deletion request on your test page for now, but it is really not good to have test pages in mainspace. It has been there now for several days, apparently with nothing happening. Please either complete the test or have the page removed. SpinningSpark 18:17, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Very soon (I hope). I may need to check one more thing. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:11, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You might be interested in this: Talk:Black Hills (Washington)#Mason County? ☆ Bri (talk) 16:13, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Thanks. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 18:37, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! The {{cnote}} templates has been nominated for merging with the {{efn}}/{{notelist}} family of templates. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. E to the Pi times i (talk | contribs) 06:29, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You might be interested in [2] ☆ Bri (talk) 21:25, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. And a source to support "she", if anyone wants to put that into the article. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:45, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 1976 Longling earthquake, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Red River (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:05, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, I'll call your bluff. Let's discuss my characterization of Dennis's comment. Explain how his argument is not logically fallacious and I'll strike my characterization of it. Parsecboy (talk) 23:35, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It seems you still do not grasp what I am saying. The essence of my comment is not whether Dennis' argument is "nonsensical" (or even "ridiculous" or "logically fallacious") or not, but whether your characterization of that argument has any basis or relevance. Note that even if his argument is fallacious, that does not make it nonsensical, so this challenge you make is not really relevant. Note also that Dennis is probably the best person to defend his own argument, though in this case you two really should stand away from each other.

Striking your characterization would be a good thing. Not making additional unfounded characterizations would also be good. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:04, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I already explained why my characterization has relevance. The point of any debate is to identify the superior argument - if one argument is obviously fallacious, it is best to identify it as such.

In any event, thanks for continuing the bluff. I won't be striking anything. Nor will I be returning here. Parsecboy (talk) 00:21, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

PB repeatedly refers to a "bluff", leading me to wonder if his concept of discussion is modeled on a poker game. Some fascinating implications there. If anyone else has comments feel free to chime in. In the small chance anyone is interested this arose from here. 21:18, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Hello, J. Johnson. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ahoy! Here's a question about an edit you made here. You left the infobox field "isc-event" as n/a, but I've been filling those in with the ISC event just the same as the EQ-isc-link template. Are we on the same page? Dawnseeker2000 04:17, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! I just checked the "articles using 'origintime" category, and ... it's empty! The last time I checked I reckoned there was enough work there to last till Xmas. Have the elves been working overtime?

As to the 'n/a': nah, that was just me whipping out some changes without digging further. I usually check just the ISC event index, which only includes the most significant events (M > 5 or so, I think), instead of doing a search. By the way, check out the EMSC EventId Finder(at http://www.seismicportal.eu/eventid) where you can enter (say) the ANSS event id and get the corresponding ISC event id. That might be real handy for some of these cases. You and I might not be on quite the same line, but I think we're good for the same page. And I see that the folks doing the latest quakes seem to be following pretty well. I would like to see more use of the {cite anss} and {cite isc} templates, but, hey, they're not even a year old yet! ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:57, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dave: I have copied your comments to the article's Talk page, which is the more appropriate place to discuss an article. Also: ip addresses reveal your geographical location. When you find that (whoops!) you have not logged in, it is best to copy your text to your computer, cancel your edit, log in, and then do the edit. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:09, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This is a notice that the page you created, Draft:1382 Dover Straits earthquake--test, was tagged as a test page under section G2 of the criteria for speedy deletion and has been or soon may be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. CoolSkittle (talk) 22:47, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You should read WP:OWN WRT Template:ReliefWeb-link — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.56.207.189 (talk) 00:56, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You should contribute to the discussion on the wording on the template talk page. Mikenorton (talk) 13:22, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently you rejected and reverted my edit because you didn’t like my edit summary. Fair enough about using the talk page to explain my edits, which I will do in future, including for today’s edits. (FYI: The link you provided to the Wikipedia page you wanted me to reference, WPP:BRD, is dead. Typos perhaps?)

Mesanwhile, if you found anything substantially wrong with my edits—mistakes in the content—couldn’t you just correct them (or point them out to me so I could correct them)? Does an infraction against some obscure rule justify trashing, not just the mistake/infraction, but the whole edit? (These are honest questions: if that’s how Wikipedia works now, that’s how it works now.)

Thanks, Jim_Lockhart (talk) 08:31, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, a typo. What I was pointing you to is WP:BRD (WP:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle). Which is hardly "some obscure rule"; it is a well-known and widely endorsed concept, but I suspect you know that. At any rate, my objection was not your edit summary itself, but using the edit summary for the discussion that should be on the Talk page. "Embedding" a discussion in a series of edit summaries disjoints it, making it hard to find and piece together, and even harder for someone else to join in without making an edit. And while I have qualms about some of your edits, we can discuss those on the article's Talk page.

Fair enough. No, I did not know that, which is why I asked if it was a typo. I should have intuited the WP:BRD was the right link and tried it myself. Tell me, though: What is your reason for the aggressive tone and what seems to be an assumption that I’m editing in bad faith? And why are you suddenly so interested in this article now, when it’s obviously been neglected for quite a long time? Jim_Lockhart (talk) 12:31, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tne point I would ask about here: you seem to be on a mission to expunge every mention of "Shindo". Wny? For sure, "Japan Meteorological Agency (JMA) seismic intensity scale" may be the precisely correct official name, but my understanding is that "Shindo" is the common and well-known name of this scale (at least in English). Perhaps not the least because it has only two syllable versus, oh, eighteen syllables. While I am generally in favor of precision in language, is it really useful to expunge "Shindo" in all cases? ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:57, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, it isn’t useful to expunge shindo in all cases, which is why I didn’t. If you think it is more accessible to the common English reader, then use it as often as you like.

If "Shindo" is the common and well-known name of this scale (at least in English), then all you need to do is 1) say so, and 2) provide thee evidence. Meanwhile, the entities I have worked for have asked specifically that we (translators) avoid excessively use of shindo in English writing. One reason is to avoid giving the impression that the JMA scale is somehow uniquely Japanese, and another is because the JMA itself prefers seismic intensity in English. Jim_Lockhart (talk) 12:31, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Shindo" is regularly used in English language scholarly articles - see hits for its use from 2010 on Google Scholar (ignoring hits for various scientists called Shindo). Mikenorton (talk) 23:56, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, Mikenorton. Thanks for saying so in a friendly manner. Maybe you can improve the article without incurring wrath and vitrole. Jim_Lockhart (talk) 12:31, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What is aggressive in saying "take it to the Talk page"? On what basis have you assumed that I assumed bad faith? As to why I am "suddenly so interested in this article now": in the present matter I was prompted by your flurry of edits. More broadly, I have been working in the area of earthquake scales (magnitude and intensity) for several years now; there is nothing "suddenly" about it.

I explained the objection to "seismic intensity" at the article's talk page, and also (in part) the distinction between "JMA intensities" and "Shindo scale". As to "avoid giving the impression that the JMA scale is somehow uniquely Japanese": how is it not "uniquely Japanese"? ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:57, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Consider this the only request I will make: Unless you intend to report a policy violation on my part to an administrators' notice board, stay off of my talk page. And that includes responding to this message. I will afford you the same courtesy after this message. 75.182.115.183 (talk) 21:06, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) This is a fairly meaningless request unless you create an account. Nobody can ever be really sure that it's the same person editing from that IP from day to day, and in most cases the best thing to do with IP editors is to template them. It's a necessary step before taking anything ao an administrators noticeboard, and it's the level of engagement most appropriate for anonymous IPs. The advantages of asking to Don't template the regulars or "stay off my talk page" are not so easy to claim from an anonymous IP. I'd create an account if I were you.

If you're sure that inappropriate warnings are appearing on your talk page, and you aren't willing to create an account, your best bet is to take that to an admin noticeboard yourself. Otherwise, expect to see more templates. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:03, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Dennis. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:16, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What I was trying to say in my edit summary (I blame the backspace and enter keys being too close together): That one bit of an edit is inaccurate is no reason to revert the entire edit.

By changing it to say "International maritime signal flags refers to" you have added nonsense. Please take care when reverting edits to make sure you don't revert a legitimate improvement or correction along with whatever you were trying to revert. See also Wikipedia:Restoring part of a reverted edit. — Smjg (talk) 13:26, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please be more careful to not add nonsense in the first place.

The use of "refers to" versus "are" could be an interesting discussion, as "international maritime signal flags" is not a definite thing (at least not in the sense of the International Code of Signals) that "is"; it is some editor's poorly defined and rather vague notion of maritime flag signaling. Strictly speaking, there are no explicitly identified "international maritime signal" flags, as the flags used are mainly the ICS flags. (The topic presumably excludes naval flag signaling.) However, I'm a bit busy, so can't get into that discussion at any length. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:35, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note that you will violate WP:3RR at 1976 Tangshan earthquake if you make another revert. I saw that the source may have been what caused your disagreement (even though your edit summary said that the removed figure was the cause) and I was reintroducing it before having an edit conflict with your third undo.

If your specific disagreement is with the removal of a particular source, then just change that part yourself instead of repeatedly hitting “undo”. It’s both lazy and aggressive. — MarkH21 (talk) 22:37, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would presume that initially you may have been just sloppy, and took out the citation accidentally; a simple restoration would have resolved the point. Which I left to you because it was your error, and I really don't like having to clean up after other people. But YOUR laziness in hitting revert also carries a whiff of arrogance: what, you expect others to clean up your mistakes? Why don't you restore the deleted citation? ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:53, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I didn't see the need for that footnote in my first edit. Then you objected please do not sneak-delete the 600,000+ figures while being okay with the death toll change, so my subsequent edit reintroduced the death toll change and preserved the "600,000+ figures" without realizing that you also wanted the source to remain. You then reverted the entire thing again with the edit summary Perhaps not intentional the first time, but now the deletion is deliberate, and I reject it. which does not mention anything about why you still objected. You only mention the deletion of the source in your third revert of the entire edit. All of my reversions were to add exactly what you objected to.

This wasted time for both of us and would have literally been entirely avoided if you only reverted the portion that you objected to, as mentioned/linked to in the Wikipedia guideline on etiquette, recommended by WP:REVERT and WP:BRDREVERT, and described thoroughly in the essays WP:REV, WP:DONTREVERT (linked to by WP:EQ), and WP:BABY. Furthermore, past ArbCom cases such as this one state that Revert rules should not be construed as an entitlement or inalienable right to revert, nor do they endorse reverts as an editing technique. with one supporting vote from arbitrator @SilkTork: Reverting of anything other than obvious vandalism or harm should be considered very carefully as reverting can often be perceived as an act of aggression which then provokes a negative response. Consideration, politeness and discussion go a long way to assisting everyone to build this encyclopaedia appropriately. Especially since previous editors have talked to you about this before and this recommendation has been made at ArbCom and ANI before, I do think that it is a good recommendation.

This is not the first time that an editor has found your reversions aggressive and I am not the only one to find this discourteous. Recent examples: myself in a past discussion (at the 1976 Tangshan earthquake talk page), @JALockhart: (on your talk page), @Smjg: (on your talk page). Even if you don't like having to clean up after other people, this has clearly caused issues in the past with other editors. I personally value your contributions and I don't intend on bringing anything up at ANI, but someone else might. I'm not commenting on who is right or wrong in the other situations, but your quickness to hit "undo" causes plenty of edit wars like this 4-month 24-undo war at Ali Mirdrekvandi. — MarkH21 (talk) 23:44, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this could have been resolved much more expeditiously. And could also have been entirely avoided if only you have been more careful in your edit. However, I see you have restored the missing citation, which is what was needed. Thank you. I also object to the named-ref (for the Xinhua item), but I will fix that myself (because I think I said a while back that I would demonstrate how to do it). ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 17:51, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on 2014 Oso mudslide; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. VQuakr (talk) 00:39, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I might remind you of WP:BRD. The scenario is: you Boldly edited, which I found objectionable, but there is no harm because I can cure that with a simple Reversion. Which I did, with an edit summary explaining my objection. At which point the recommended practice is to Discuss the issues. But no, you proceeded to revert back to your version, which I take as the first step of edit warring, and therefore you should equally heed the above cautions. But presumably these are moot, as we will now proceed with the discussion (below). Right? ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 18:57, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

May I remind you of WP:ROWN. The wikitext markup not meeting your personal standards for page breaks is an inadequate reason to remove archival links to sources (which has an actual impact on the quality of the article to the reader). And no, you reverted both me and a bot so the situation is not equivalent. Yes, please do explain on the talk page since it doesn't sound like your opinion is incompatible with the presence of archival links. VQuakr (talk) 19:06, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You misapprehend the matter. The formatting, though not seen by the readers, is seen by the editors, and affects accuracy. (See explanation in the next section.) As to compatibility of formatting and archival links: how is this an issue? Does adding archival links require reformatting? I very much doubt that. So why is the bot doing that? It is totally unnecessary for links, and degrades the verifiability of full citations. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:24, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what you think the bot is doing wrong at 2014 Oso mudslide, but 1. quit reverting it, and 2. if you don't know how to reformat the refs, ask for help on the talk page with a clear problem statement and I will do what I can.

It's not my bot. VQuakr (talk) 00:39, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your condescending tip, but I am quite able to reformat "references". The issue is, at one level, 1) why is the bot screwing up the formatting of the citations, and at another level, 2) who should clean-up after this drive-by botting?

As to your having "no idea" of what is wrong: I think the edit summary on my reversion is quite clear. But perhaps I should respond to your edit summary here ("having working ref archives is rather obviously more important to the reader than ref page breaks being the way you prefer. If you can explain on talk, I can try to adjust the refs.") The issue here is not about adding archival links, it is about formatting, and if formatting is not important then why is the bot doing it? But as it turns out formatting is important, as (in this instance) having each author on a separate line, and with each part of the author's name on the same line, enhances accuracy. It makes it clearer (easier to visually parse) each author's name (inverted or not), and to ensure that the "lastN/firstN" numbering is correct. This is not merely my personal preference; the importance of such formatting is well-known in programming. If you have any doubts I would recommend reading Kernighan and Plauger's The Elements of Programming Style, or even Strunk and White's The Elements of Style.

Thus: formating is important. The questions to be addressed are: 1) why is a bot whose work is advertised as "rescuing references" also messing with the formatting? And: 2) who should clean-up after this bot? ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:21, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki markup isn't an academic paper; external style guides are irrelevant. The relevant guideline is on-Wiki at WP:CITE. Your questions about formatting should be addressed to the bot owners listed at User:InternetArchiveBot; links to the discussions about the bot's behavior (and consensus for the bot to do what it does) are also linked from that page.

No, your edit summary linked above is not adequate information for others to know your preference. From your comment above, it sounds like you would like the refs to be formatted like:

|last = Smith |first = John

|last2= Jones |first2= Jane

and not

|last = Smith |first = John |last2= Jones |first2= Jane

or

|last = Smith
|first = John
|last2= Jones
|first2= Jane

Have I got that correct? I am trying to be clear (since you can't be bothered to), because I find it hard to believe that anyone could actually have enough of on opinion on this to remove real content.

To be clear, no one is going to care if you have personal criteria on how refs should be formatted. But. If you start reverting to enforce them, or expecting others to care/know about your personal standard even though you haven't pursued making it any sort of standard, there's going to be friction. VQuakr (talk) 23:57, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I am bothering rather much to be clear to you, and I object to your insinuation that I am not. I also believe my initial edit summary was sufficiently clear, and that what clarified your understanding of what I want was not my comments above (on why that formatting is better) but that you finally read my edit summary. Incidentally, the books I referred you to are not intended as "style guides" (certainly not in the sense of MLA or CMS), but as explanations on why formatting is important for clarity and accuracy. Though I don't suppose I can make you drink.

You have not answered my question of why adding archival links seemingly require undoing certain formatting. Of course, the answer is that this is not required, and the underlying substantive question is: then why does the bot do that? That could be an informative discussion, but I sense we are not going there. Another question that comes up is: why are you being such a jerk? I am sorry if that seems harsh, but please understand that is just how I am receiving you. E.g., you argue that I am not allowed to insist on a preferred formatting, but then you insist (implicitly) that a different formatting must be allowed. Perhaps you understand why that appears rather one-sided? ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:31, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Was that a yes or no? VQuakr (talk) 01:27, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You still haven't answered my questions. I think the answers here are looking like "yes and no": yes, you are a jerk, and no, unformatting is not required. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:13, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't get to respond to your detailed reply before the ANI was closed and archived. I'll just address the summation point: 'As to "way too little evidence that the root problem in the dispute is Curly Turkey": I think most others would disagree.' If most others [at ANI] disagreed, then the matter would have closed – way, way sooner – with sanctions against CT. I'm not going to deny that your point-by-point may have had merits from a certain point of view, but the policies in which it is grounded are open to a great deal of subjective interpretation (thus ANI and its lengthy discussions). One person's "tendentiousness" is another's vigilance, when it's centered on a CCPOL matter. One person's "disruptive tagging" is another's normal following of cleanup/dispute template procedure and documentation. Your arguments in the end were not persuasive enough to enough ANI participants.

If this had gone to ArbCom instead of ANI, I'm close to 100% certain that parties on both sides of it would have been sanctioned, not just one side. If issues continue as before at the same article, please consider that your accusations of TE, unresponsiveness, PoV-pushing, etc., are all mirrored by CT against you and your "allies" in the matter. This isn't lost on uninvolved observers. Both "factions" need to re-examine their own approach, and hopefully step back from the topic for a while and let their tempers cool. Your seeking of one-sided sanctions with a rationale that, for many of us, appeared to boil down to "get rid of one side so the other side can WP:WIN" obviously didn't go over well (cf. WP:WRONGVERSION, and the later observation that sanctions are not issued to "test" propositions about later article development).

If it's any consolation, I've been in a similar situation before, where I was dead certain that the other party was flagrantly violating several policies (especially cherry-picking and personal WP:AEIS with primary and tertiary sources, and blatantly misrepresenting the content of some secondary ones, to arrive at a SYNTH conclusion), excessively personalizing the dispute for no legitimate reason (with many civility and NPA and BATTLEGROUND breaches), transgressing our norms with regard to cleanup/dispute templates, obsessively pushing a personal viewpoint in WP's own voice, using IDHT and GAMING and FILIBUSTER tactics, ignoring BRD, canvassing for a TAGTEAM, etc., etc. Re-reading the discussion long after the fact, it's now clear to me that any outside observer would have had a hard time telling that person's actions and motivations apart from my own (despite them actually being different), and it is why I did not get "satisfaction" in that dispute, despite various admins getting involved. Perception actually matters, and being strident, finger-pointy, and STONEWALLing makes oneself look like the problem. See also the "unclean hands" principle; noticeboard actions veer toward doomed or even BOOMERANG unless one's own behavior in a dispute has been exemplary (not just by your own standards but by those whom you're asking to step in).
 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:32, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I thought you may want to know that Curly Turkey has started an ArbCom request here an extension of the ANI. I will comment there when I have time, but I wanted to make sure you are aware as Curly has not notified all parties.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 01:58, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]