Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Joe Bodacious (talk | contribs) at 22:32, 20 April 2014 (→Disruptive editing at Earthquake prediction). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Barnstar awarded

		The Guidance Barnstar
		awarded for clear guidance here in footnote formating which solved an otherwise intractable problem, with thanks and best wishes from ElijahBosley 21:15, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Wow. Thank you! I must have sounded like I knew what I was saying.  :-) - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:43, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Canonical IPCC citations.

The canonical forms are now at: SAR, TAR, AR4, and AR5 (not yet built). My earlier development versions are now at /Canonical IPCC citations.

Articles revised

The following articles have either had their IPCC references revised to the canonical form (Y), need to be revised (=), determined not to need revision (✗), or not yet checked (?). Feel free to suggest other candidates.

Y=Global warming#References, Y=Scientific opinion on climate change#References, YPlanetary boundaries#References, Y=Global_climate_model#References, =IPCC (terrible), YIPCC Second Assessment Report#References, YIPCC Third Assessment Report#References, =IPCC Fourth Assessment Report#References(SRES), YSpecial Report on Emissions Scenarios,

Y=Attribution of recent climate change#References, YClimate_change#References, ✗Climate change denial#References, =Current sea level rise#References, YGlobal_warming_controversy#References (but still ugly), =Temperature_record_of_the_past_1000_years#References, YEffects_of_global_warming#References, =Climate_sensitivity#References,

Archives?

JJ, where does one find your archives? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:57, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Just in case JJ's not around, try here and here. Mikenorton (talk) 20:47, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

thanks MikeNewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:52, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

FYI you name was mentioned

Hi JJ, FYI your name was mentioned on my talk page today (by others). NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:07, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I have responded there. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:42, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Siletzia

Finally got back to Misplaced Pages. Siletzia is extremely well researched and written. Well done.

Think there is a recent article (last month or so) in Nature that may have a bearing on the article. I'll give it a look next week when I'm back home and have access to journal articles again.

Best regards - Williamborg (Bill) 04:12, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Referenced Nature article - doesn't provide detail for Siletzia, but is relevant to the larger picture. If you don't have access to and would like a copy, please let me know. Williamborg (Bill) 17:50, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, glad you like it. It arose out of the necessity of filling a very large hole in my own knowledge, for which there were no convenient summaries.

The Nature looks interesting (Sigloch has been busy); I may grab a copy later today. I am especially excited at the prospect it might integrate a broad view of Mesozoic western N.A. development (including Siletzia, Wrangellia, Sierra Nevada, Baja-B.C., etc.) It certainly provides a setting for Siletzia. But I think it would be more suitable for Farallon plate (which is currently only a stub, but whose importance really requires fuller treatment), where it could bear upon all of the related topics to which it is relevant. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 16:35, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, very interesting. But I see that it is a proposed alternative to the existing view, so per WP:WEIGHT we really need to present it in that context. And again, I think this really needs to be in Farallon plate, which needs some development. Do you suppose we could get a few folks interested in a whirlwind effort to do that? I'm thinking we could identify the various articles that could use it as the basis, and then put up notices. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:33, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Dashes

This edit made a lot of work for me to clean up. Em dashes should not be spaced (except maybe where you use them to set off the author of a quotation, though that's not specified at MOS:DASH). I've changed to spaced en dashes, since that seems closer to what was intended, given a similar mixup in your previous edit here. Dicklyon (talk) 01:08, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

See also my edit here for ideas how you can stay closer to WP style in your future contributions; esp. note that we don't capitalize heading words beyond the first. Dicklyon (talk) 01:14, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Some of those weren't my edits, but I'll keep an eye on it. My approach to dashes has been evolving; I'll try to review MOS:DASH sometime soon. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 17:55, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

I meant to be in conformance regarding en dashes, even configured my key-map to generate en dashes. But, alas, my browser and my screen font, though otherwise Unicode, insist on doing em dashes. I'm still working on it. Meanwhile, don't retire the dash bot quite yet. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:45, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

WP:CITE

Hi, your proposal failed to gain consensus on talk, and was opposed by several editors, so please continue that discussion rather than trying to force in the change. Many thanks, SlimVirgin 20:11, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	For Siletzia. One of the most impressive new articles I've seen in a long time. Ironholds (talk) 00:57, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:20, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Ambrose Channel pilot cable

Hi J. Johnson! I noticed you reverted my bot's edit to Talk:Ambrose Channel pilot cable. If you look closely, the bot did not remove {{GA nominee}}, but instead moved it below the WikiProject banners. Since Misplaced Pages:Talk page layout recommends that {{GA nominee}} should be listed before the WikiProject banners, I submitted a bug report to the AutoWikiBrowser developers. I'll have the bot work on other tasks while I'm waiting to get a response from the developers. GoingBatty (talk) 23:23, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Oops, yes, I missed that it was simply moved to the bottom. Sorry. Another bot has since gotten in there, which I believe precludes a simple self-revert. Go ahead if you want to put that change in again. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:06, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

FYI, the AWB developers have fixed the bug I've reported, which allowed me to add {{WikiProjectBannerShell}} to Talk:Ambrose Channel pilot cable without moving {{GA nominee}}. Good luck with the GA process! GoingBatty (talk) 03:10, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

My computer suddenly doesn't want to save my changes unless I'm using VE, which isn't going to happen. I just lost edits to both the article and GA page, so I'll give it another shot tonight or tomorrow. Andrew 21:09, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Ah, was there perhaps an edit conflict because I was also editing? (Like perhaps I should have put up the notice. My apologies if that is the case.) Okay, I can understand re VE. I'm going to take a couple whacks to the article, then I'll done for today. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:32, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I'm done with article and talk page edits for today. Have at 'em, cowboy. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:47, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Great Uncomformity

"Beg to differ: many unconformities demonstrate, these two are notable. "

I wasn't implying that other uncomformities don't demonstrate. They do. However, "Great Unconformity", to my knowledge, is only applied to the two examples in the lead, thus making "most notably" redundant. There aren't any "less notable" "Great Unconformities" that would necessitate the use of "most notably". I'd concede that that's being a bit pedantic, but I personally think that removing redundant phrases that serve no real purpose improves an article.

Of course, if you know of other uncomformities that are consistently referred to as "Great Unconformity", then I'd be wrong, and would happily admit to it. Thoughts? Rockypedia (talk) 05:10, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, s not entirely clear. There are other unconformities of a "great" nature, which may occasionally be termed such, but these two are notable for being the prime examples of a large gap in the stratigraphic record. I'm still pondering on the matter. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 18:20, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Siletzia

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Siletzia you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Ironholds -- Ironholds (talk) 00:42, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

citation question respomse

I should follow the advice I give to my subordinates: don’t read emotion or intent into written communications unless is it specifically stated! No hard feelings? WeldNeck (talk) 20:57, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, I was starting to feel some exasperation. But glad to have this straightened out. And would still appreciate your feedback. While there may be some ambiguity in your question that the rest of us missed, it does seem like the type of question that Citing sources should answer. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:22, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

International maritime signal flags‎

While your revert to this article was absolutely the right thing to do. Will calling the editor in question an "illiterate" do any good here?--RadioFan (talk) 02:17, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Depends on what you mean by "good". Although rather improbable (because they don't read!), if someone was stung enough by the criticism to start reading before they leap, that would be good. Otherwise I will settle for venting a little frustration. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:38, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Mind if I just say, I've now noted this exchange. (I'm down a ways at #Multiple uses of a single source in an article: Footnote format thoughts trying to talk gently, in a gingerly fashion, about tone. Cheers, Wireless. Swliv (talk) 23:41, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Re. formatting of Siletzia

I thought it looked better the way I had it, but I won't insist. Jsayre64 (talk) 03:31, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm open to discussing it. Particularly the {reflist|2} versus {reflist|30 em}, which I might adopt myself if someone would give me a good argument for it. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 17:55, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, I just think that 30em and div col make an article much more neat to look at. Two columns is perfect for a laptop. On a little phone or tablet, one column is usually best. On a big desktop monitor, you'll often want three. With 30em and div col, it's one-size-fits-all, so a list won't look strange to anybody. It will look more tidy. Jsayre64 (talk) 03:18, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

  Okay, I'm just about persuaded for fixed col width (more adaptable). But editors vary on the width; what would be optimal?

  As for {{div col}}: that essentially forces two columns regardless, which goes against a fixed col width. By the same argument as before, this should use {{{colwidth}}}. But again, what width? I like shorter widths in reflist, as the references (esp. Harv) are often short, but the full citations are longer, and I don't like to break them up so much. Even on the widest displays a full citation generally uses most of a line, so I don't mind a single column. I do mind having a citation splashed over more than three lines. So a col width of 35 or 40 em? What do you think? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:45, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

You make a good point about just work-and-page footnotes belonging in thinner columns. I realize that the Natchez Massacre reflist, for example, would look better in 20em than the current 30. Vancouver Island's reflist, however, is fine the way it is. So the width should vary by article, even though you'll come across longer citations, such as in Vancouver Island, much more often than shorter ones, as in Natchez Massacre. And for articles with very few references, one column is fine.

For div col, I think if an article has at least as many bulleted works as High Desert (Oregon), {{refbegin}} (for smaller text) and more than one column need to apply. In fact, I just noticed that you can use {{div col||30em}} just as you can with a reflist, but with an extra pipe there. I really should have noticed that earlier. So, since "works cited" citations are always full, you won't want less than 30em, and more width than that appears to force the list into one column. Thus, for Siletzia, I propose a 30em reflist and a 30em div col. Jsayre64 (talk) 23:05, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

  I am coming around to fixing the minimum col width rather than absolute number of columns. The remaining question is: how much? For full citations (typically in References, but quite often in Notes, etc.) I think at least 30 em, perhaps even 32 em. (I'm amazed how just a couple of em get amplified in application.) Searching for "{{reflist}}" (I believe the way most articles are edited reflist usually has full cites) I found 98k hits, but only 1,719 for 32em. (Oh.) In this case I am inclined to go with the herd.

  Definitely needs to be shorter for mostly short cites and notes. I was thinking 24 em, but (doing a bunch of experimenting) see that 20 em might be better. And more popular: the distribution of sizes seems to peak at 20 em (4,722 hits).

  Okay, I'll give it a test drive, but want to check it on a wide screen tonight. I can always come back and shoot the salesman, right? :-)  ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:16, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

All right. It looks like you've done a ton of research for Siletzia. I hope the GAN will be a success. Jsayre64 (talk) 00:18, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:27, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

WikiCup 2014

Hi, if you haven't already, you should consider signing up for WikiCup 2014. Cheers, --Sp33dyphil ©_ontributions 02:17, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, but it looks like I would be way in the back of the pack. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:58, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Newbie flag proposal

I like your proposal at Misplaced Pages:Village_pump_(proposals)#Proposal_for_a_newbie_flag. You might not be surprised to hear that I like mine better. At first glance, my proposal has all of the benefits of your proposal, plus some additional ones. (I'm concerned about "using" up names on editors who do not stick around.) Perhaps we should talk, to see whether I can persuade you to help support me, or if there's some third option that delivers something better than both. If my proposal is TLDR, please look at "Problem 4", which is essentially your problem statement.--S Philbrick(Talk) 22:07, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, we should confer. I'll look over your proposal tonight. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:56, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

  An interesting idea. And I allow right off that it would do pretty as much as my idea tries to do, and would do more. But "as much as" plus "more" doesn't necessarily mean better; you have to look at the negatives as well. Most likely your idea will do nothing at all because it has a near zero chance of being adopted.

  One major problem is (as you suspect) making new editors second-class citizens. Look at how much static I'm getting for supposedly proposing just a "scarlet letter of shame", then consider what you would get for suggesting that new editors be given numbers and locked below decks until they come up with a thousand ducats(!!). A number of other defects could be cited, but the main point is that it is quite unlikely your idea is going anywhere.

  For the more modest goal of identifying newbies I believe my proposal has a good chance of adoption. If we can generate some consensus. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:14, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Sphilbrick: Did you want to explore this further? I do have an idea for you that may be much more workable. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:51, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

I do. I just drove five hours, and haven't eaten, so won't add any more than this now. I have a very full day tomorrow, but will have more time starting Tuesday. I'll try to remember to come back, please ping me if you don't hear from by Tuesday evening.--S Philbrick(Talk) 01:47, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

  The names that you would give to new users are ugly, and about as inviting as the number and striped clothing given a new convict. You overlook that 1) many users want to come in with a certain name, and 2) when (under your proposal) they graduate from purgatory and get a new name there is a break in their history, making it harder to track.

  I think you would have better success for a scheme where the registrant gets a name like the one requested, but with a suffix like "~1". E.g.: "Smith~1". When the editor has shown he is not ephemeral the suffix can be removed. Alternately, if he does abandon the account then the next person to request the name gets "Smith~2". Eventually someone takes permanent possession of "Smith" and that name is no longer available.

  For existent abandoned accounts I would suggest something similar: rename them using a "~0" prefix. As it is quite unlikely that archived records would be revised to reflect such a change, there would have to be some kind of notification in the account history that edits before some date are by another person.

  I don't know that the foregoing is really a good thing, but I think it would be much more likely to reach the end you want. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:46, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Sphilbrick: Hello? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:51, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, thanks for the ping, but overwhelmed with other priorities. Hope to come back to this.--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:55, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Technical Barnstar
	Your advice put me on the right path. Thank you. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 22:12, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, and buckle up

Hi, We have had our differences, and I don't really appreciate the nuances of citation formats, but you do and you care. Thanks for paying attention. If I read the IPCC page correctly, the tenative release date for WG1 AR5 is Jan 30. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:58, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

I was wondering if I should look at revising all of that in anticipation of the release, but most of my motivation has been in other directions. Are there any points that especially need attention? Is there any interest in trying to get proper citation from the outset? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:21, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

It's easy enough to plug the new info into the templates you made. I still don't really understand the pros.cons of different approaches. Someday, I hope someone developes a really easy demo page This/looks like this; That/looks like that. Table of pros/cons. Simple, for the non-citation gnomes to grasp at a single reading. Now that would be a great tool.... and way beyond my ability. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:53, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

It is not really hard — provided one has an adequate conceptual basis!! Which I have now, but it did take a bit of work to sort out. (I've tried to clarify things at Citing sources, but it seems like there are some fossilized attitudes there.) I can give you a lesson if you want (always looking to work out possible lesson plans). ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:51, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Siletzia

The article Siletzia you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Siletzia for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Ironholds -- Ironholds (talk) 00:52, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

IPCC AR5 citations

To improve the citation of the IPCC AR5 reports I am updating the citation data at Talk:IPCC Fifth Assessment Report/citation. I am also going to try a somewhat different approach than I did for AR4 in providing nearly complete citations using {{Harv}}-based short-cites and {{citation}}-based full citations. This should make citation of the AR5 reports easier and ultimately more consistent and even more accurate. If you have questions or comments feel free to ask here, or at Talk:IPCC Fifth Assessment Report. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:11, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

May build character

The standard experience here (and implicit expectation) is that you have to figure out a citation "style" on your own. A major benefit of this approach is that such an experience may build character. Made me chuckle, as anyone who is aware of the disagreements over the citation page would understand it has nothing to do with citation style (and everything to do with using or not using templates) and hence has everything to do with Misplaced Pages politics—and internal Misplaced Pages politics that either builds character or sends the person away angry (or a blithering idiot). -- PBS (talk) 08:45, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, sometimes the scene here reminds me of Robert Service's ice worms that, having nothing else to subsist on, chew on each other, till only the toughest survive.

"Everything to do with using or not using templates"? Really? I thought that was just one of multiple points of division. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:09, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Actually, now you mention it...

You were right: There was a "brushes and paint" answer: Jc3s5h mentioned Help:Footnotes. That does count (if just barely) as an answer to what I was asking and is helpful. Sorry for my blanket denial of any such answer, in any form, having been made. There was, after all, one instance.

Though keep in mind: Only one, and only by one person.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 00:50, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Everyone that commented at WT:Citing sources#Information on HOW to cite, and the format/syntax of citation/reference tags answered you in some way, your inability to see that notwithstanding. However, given the unlikelihood of any useful result, I am not interested in discussing this any further with you. Good-bye. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:00, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages files

Misplaced Pages:Files needs a sentence (from someone like you with experiences) such as what you wrote on the talk page of File copyright tags/Non-free.

The attitude that would construct Misplaced Pages needs the boldness that that sentence could carry. It is missing there, whereas legal complications still seem too heavy to bother.

It seems so right, what you said, to ask an author directly for an image for Misplaced Pages, but I can't say I've got your certainty when I see Misplaced Pages:Requesting copyright permission. Thanks for considering this message from a WP:files editor. — CpiralCpiral 19:18, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Leech River Fault

Hi. Thanks for writing worthwhile content, and for commenting on my nomination at DYK, and for confirming that the fault is a thrust fault. (When I wrote that, I thought it to be true, but then I waffled after seeing a statement in the article suggesting that the straightness of lineament could indicate that it was strike-slip fault...)

DYK articles need not be of broad interest. Most topics in the encyclopedia are basically special interest, after all, and DYK tries to show Misplaced Pages's diversity. You are contributing some very solid content, and it deserves to be seen by more people.

No hook for Leech River Fault is going to attract the kind of big audience that is attracted when the topic is something like sex or military ships (I'm amazed by the number of people who care about the latter topic), but ideally the hook will be interesting enough that people who care about the topic will click on it. I proposed the first hook with the notion that it might attract some geologically oriented folks (one or two of whom might possibly contribute to enhancing the article, or at least adding it to categories or wikiprojects), as well as people who are curious about terminology they don't understand. (Those people can read also visit Siletzia, if they want, and they may also want to read about subduction.) Also, sorting out terrane relationships in areas like Vancouver Island and the Olympic Peninsula may be interesting to anyone who has visited the area and puzzled over differences in physical characteristics that can exist across short distances.

I proposed the second hook for two reasons. First, because I thought there might be concern about lack of an explicit footnote in the article to support the first hook, and this was an easy substitute to offer up. Second, because my experience at DYK has taught me that many people around Misplaced Pages would find that factoid to be far more unusual than you (and I) know it to be. Many people would have absolutely no clue that most faults are inactive (see Template:Did you know nominations/San Quintín Volcanic Field for evidence of what I refer to).

You may be able to offer a better hook suggestion, or possibly wording changes to make my first suggestion more palatable to more people. If so, please do so! --Orlady (talk) 01:02, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment. Are you interested particularly in the LRF, or just looking for points of interest generally? E.g., I think the distinctive linearity of Loss Creek, which reflects the LRF, is better catcher of interest. (And I have been looking at partially rewriting Loss Creek to explain that, but LC is, and most likely always will be, a stub. And I haven't yet come up with a better way of getting to that from LRF.) I'll think about some alternatives for you. Though I think there might be better points in some of the other articles. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:40, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

WP:DYK features new articles, newly expanded articles, and articles recently designated as "Good Articles," so Leech River Fault is the only one of these articles that currently qualifies for DYK. I'm not particularly interested in this particular fault, but ran across the article while patrolling for good new work to nominate for inclusion at DYK.

Facts included in DYK need to be in the article and supported by reference citations in the article. A hook on Loss Creek would need a source. If published sources state that the LRF is a thrust fault and is interpreted as having formerly been a strike-slip fault, that could be a interesting hook fact, but it would need to be stated fairly explicitly in the article and footnoted (to one or more sources). --Orlady (talk) 21:51, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

  Funny thing, I was just considering a formulation for you. Thanks for explaining about DYK (I have have been quite oblivious). I just revised Loss Creek, but agree it is not suitable.

  There has been a professional difference of opinion as to whether the LRF "is" a thrust fault or left-lateral strike-fault (I think someone even suggested right-lateral), so of course there are citations supporting each view. But in opposition. (Curiously, exactly the same issue has arisen with the Devils Mountain fault.) Support of the emerging consensus that both views have validity (either concurrently, as an oblique fault, or at different times) is, however, still thin, and in sources that I don't yet have access to. So I have had to rely on some weaker sources. In a month or so I hope to better support that. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:15, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Leech River Fault

On 16 February 2014, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Leech River Fault, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that a narrow valley extending across the southern tip of Vancouver Island and past Victoria marks the Leech River Fault, a major geotectonic boundary where the Siletzia terrane dives under Vancouver Island? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Leech River Fault. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:03, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Lighten up

What's with your removal of my addition to Earthquake light on the grounds that it was too upbeat? The given source was NASA research reported by The Economist. And you call that 'fringe'? I'd appreciate your elaboration - or a reversal of the revert.
Onanoff (talk) 14:19, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

I have moved your comment to Talk:Earthquake light#Lighten up as the more appropriate venue. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:16, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Beeblebrox

I don't think the approach was the best but if you have further issues with the editor please consider using Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/User conduct which may garner better results. Thanks.--Mark Miller (talk) 05:32, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. I am unacquainted with the best way dealing with such matters, and will keep your suggestion in mind in case there is any future need. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:12, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

March 2014

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Earthquake prediction. 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.

Please be particularly aware, Misplaced Pages's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
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; 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. slakr 07:26, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

More like an edit spat. But point taken. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:53, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the citation template information. I still have to figure out how to import a template into Zotero. Looking at the Zotero forums, not sure that that is as straightforward as it should be, or why they don't just have the cite and citation templates built right into the program, since ostensibly, they are big on providing wiki support. I also have Endnote and I know my way around that program, but it seems like Zotero is better for making citations out of web pages and newspaper articles and it has the add-on option in Mozilla, but Endnote is easier to customize. Dr.Rivers (talk) 22:45, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Multiple uses of a single source in an article: Footnote format thoughts

I may have tracked the first use of "Harvnb" footnote format to you at 2014 Oso mudslide (via the charmingly nicknamed "WikiBlame"); in any event, you used it here.

For my purposes, I don't find the format as helpful to the reader as the "ref name" one; the latter brings the reader always directly to a full footnote rather than being requiring him or her to search back up to find the last exact citation (which "Miller" ... or which "Bartlett" article is it? in the case of mudslide) (or, I guess, one can click on the abbreviated cite "Miller" eg to find the full one). I recognize Harvnb to probably be a more academic format. That's not my world, Wiki or otherwise. I've gotten as far as this Wiki page to figure out Harv but still have not found even what it stands for (beyond guessing probably "Harvard") much less how you're using it et c..

If you're unfamiliar with the "ref name" format I used one in this recent edit to the page.

I don't necessarily expect to change your routine but would appreciate hearing your rationale and having maybe direction as to where to find more about the Harv format; and maybe I'd suggest you could say "introducing Harvnb footnote format" maybe even with a link to an explanation of what it means/entails when you start using it on a new page. I do recognize from quick skims you've done a lot for the article and I appreciate that (value judgment on scale of effort not content so far).

I was (separately maybe) working off annoyance when I came here that someone removed a perfectly good NYTimes Tim Egan cite for the interesting John Pennington "completely unexpected" quote. Maybe it was you. I think it was a Harvnb cite that replaced mine. In a two-hour stretch since I wrote most of the rest of this note to you I've struggled with finding an alternative way to present some info which was not (I now see) in the Egan article but which was good for the article I still think (again, if you were involved or are interested) and was removed along with the Egan cite; much of the time spent was here. Ach. Love Wiki. Cheers. Swliv (talk) 15:06, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

You raise a number of points. Let's start with the cite of the Egan op-ed piece. Possibly you refer to its first insertion by 166.147.88.28 (you?) to the "History" section. While the history may support Egan's commentary, the contrary is not true. This was inappropriate (it is not "perfectly good" to base fact on unsupported commentary), so I removed it. However, please note that I did re-insert it into the "Controversy" section, where it is appropriate. Is that satisfactory?

Now I see that you added Egan again right after the Pennington quote. (By the way, thanks for correcting my — ouch! — "unforseen".) I point out that the basis for the quote is the report in the newspaper, not Egan. He gets cited further on. It's sort of like a debate: one side speaks, later on the other side rebuts. When Pennington is quoted it is not useful to immediately characterize it; that comes later. Immediately after the quote is too soon, and I would suggest removing it.

Something else: building citations without a template leads to all kinds of problems. Please use a citation template! Look at the other cites for examples. BTW, "Armstrong, Carter & Baker 2014" does link to the full citation, and I did just add the missing url to the Times. The Yakima Herald only reprinted the Time's article.

One other point for now. I'm not clear on what you are doing with the white-list; it does seems like an unnecessarily round-about way of getting in a source. Which turns out to be irrelevant, because Pennington spoke as the DEM spokesman, not as a representative. That should be removed.

I need to attend to other stuff, so let me get back to you later re Harv.

You cover a lot of ground, so I am going to interpolate my comments.

If Egan has a quote because he's commentary he can't be cited, is that what you are saying? I can accept it if it is, for now, but I'd like to know your opinion on it if I can.

You're not making sense, so I'll try to answer what I think you're asking. Egan is stating an opinion. If he says that the moon is made of blue cheese, you can cite him for stating his opinion. But you cannot cite him to support a position that the moon is blue cheese unless he is an expert, with some kind of basis for his opinion. -JJ

I know the non-template approach ... is not favored by all .... I've never been inclined to buckle down to it (and have done ... a pretty good number of edits). Well, point taken ... though I'm not sure I'm sold yet. Your assertion of "all kinds of problems" I'd love to see spelled out somewhere? I think the official Wiki pages are neutral on the subject and in fact say (or did when I looked them over a good while ago, a few years back), one way or the other on each article, don't mix. And many don't listen to that advice/policy, I've observed. I use templates occasionally when I can lift a format from elsewhere in an article I come to work on.

The "official" Wiki pages are not so much neutral as agnostic. This is because citation is so contentious. The one basic rule (WP:CITEVAR) is that in any given article you should conform to the the existing style. And in the Oso article we are using templates. Therefore, so should you. One of the advantages of using templates is that all of the petty formating details — and links! — are handled automatically. If you try to format your citations explicitly you will be spending a lot of time and effort trying to get the details of ordering, quotes, commas, italics, etc., just right — and not always getting it right. Let the template code figure it out for you. -JJ

It's just tone but your way of putting it -- "removed unnecessary link" -- does cut a bit. It was necessary at the time I put it in. You or sombody had left it out. I Googled for it and got Yakima and no Times so I went with Yakima. It was better than nothing and better than it had been before I contributed my time and effort and the link, I'd rather you'd acknowledged. (I know the Yakima only reprinted the Times article. I checked it. It was still the Times article (almost certainly to the word though I took that chance; it was four pages long at Yakima, same writers, credit Times, seemed solid).

Yes, like I said above, I omitted the url, now added to the template. At which point your external link was no longer necessary. I am sorry if you feel your effort was unacknowledged, but, frankly, you seem to expect a lot for very little. We all contribute time and effort towards general improvement of the project; kudos generally follows only where you do exceptonally better than average. Note that Gorthian, who did a LOT more work straightening the logging section, got only a single, simple thank you. BTW, I don't know why Google would not have popped the Times to the top of your search, unless it thnks you live in Yakima. Note that you can search a specific site with a term like "site:seattletimes.com". -JJ

I appreciate the thank you. Glad to catch it. Thanks through to Wiki spellcheck. Didn't check to see if the cite had the misspelling.

If you did a global find and replace — be careful! The only reason for "fixing" something in a quote (or a title) is if it varies from the original. In this case it did, so you're fine, but in general do not change any quote (or title) unless you're staring at the original. (And perhaps not even then if it's 2 in the AM.) -JJ

I don't really follow all your Egan piece but think I get the gist and can live with it. I'm not 166.147.88.28 and don't find any edits by that IP on the Revision history page. ... Ah-h. Here I find it now. On the Talk page. ... Well, having been through my share of endless (long) Talk page mashes I can understand perhaps your tone with me ... a little. But now I see you've mixed that up (166 there not on the article) and you're riling some feathers at least over there (at Talk) maybe it's more important to remind you of tone (where I know it hurt; me; see above). ... We can each only do what we can do. If we can't do it all then we have to let the litter sit by the side of a road, to use an analogy from another part of my life, no matter how much it hurts. Now on the other hand I'm still not judging the content of your work on this article and you may be doing truly stellar work on an absolutely horrible (subject matter: grim) story. I'll leave that. And I haven't seen how you've worked out to use the Egan piece. I still don't know if it was you that removed my first use of it in the article. But ...

If you want to get down to who did what you really need to link to specific diffs. I believe the first use of Egan was in the History section, and that was quite inappropriate because he has absolutely nothing to add about the history of sliding at the site. I did cite him in "Controversy" to show that the criticism was national. -JJ

... final thing for now. I'm really surprised you would say that another half a line of directly relevant job experience by one of the lead people on the ground, John Pennington, is, how did you so charmingly put it? "irrelevant". What? You don't think "disaster response" is political? (Aren't you even curious how he shifted counties in getting the job? In a job (FEMA) when he seems to have grossly disagreed with common wisdom after the event about the risk of a slide? I don't know but I think you're sounding pretty haughty and way off base on this one. That, to put it briefly, is more of why I'm at the infernal(ly tortuous) white-list. For the time being I'm quite proud of my citation-alternative (clear, to the point, a reader can easily find the cited document via Google; as s/he ought somehow (I'm not a specialist here) to be able to do by clicking a link in Misplaced Pages (I know: I don't know the problems google.com links have caused; I accept the (infernally tortuous) white-list process with almost-good grace)) and my half-line on the subject and you may remove it if you wish but obviously such a move wouldn't have my pleasure or support.

That is the crux of the problem here: you have an agenda. You know — what? That Pennington got the job purely on political pull, and lacks competency? Does Egan say that? Nope. Anyone else? Not that I have seen. And what you "know" (how? are you psychic?) does not count here. You want to mention that he was a legislator so that readers will make this connection, but you have no source for that inference. And you seemed to have missed my point that the significance of this remark is not that it was spoken by a former legislator (there are lots of former legislators, and who gives a rat's ass what they say?) but by the Director of Snohomish County's Department of Emergency Services, who is charged with forseeing disasters. If it turns out that he was so clueless because is incompetent, well, that would get established further on. But the significance of the remark has nothing to do with his previous career, only with his current position. -JJ

Thanks again for all you're doing. Cheers. 23:18

You're welcome. -JJ

My point about the Harv is that it gives a footnote like the current #44 "Miller 1999, p. 1." (I like that it has page-number capacity which "ref name" doesn't have though I've juryrigged it a few times.) The reader then has to click on the "Miller" to be directed (via highlight) up to note #37; or scan visually up there without clicking. It's an extra step which, for many readers for whom I imagine footnotes alone are rather alien, is a step not taken and an opportunity lost (for Misplaced Pages to teach). That's all. Plus of course the fact it's an arcane hard-to-penetrate editing art which I of some experience cringe to think of even trying to penetrate (having done my first rounds of searches, as noted above). On we go, eh? ... But while I'm back: Any opinion on (a) the multi-part citations like that #37 and (b) the fact that they don't "match up" to the cite #. My first impression is that they ought to be three separate cites with three numbers. Just cleaner. And they'd match up. Swliv (talk) 23:36, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

People to whom footnotes are "rather alien" probably won't click the first time, so no loss, and for the rest a second click is so miniscule that the objection lacks substance. The real objection is editor antipathy, or just plain fear of the unknown. It is not arcane, as I propose to show you. Provided that one uses {{Citation}} templates (or {{Cite}} templates with an extra parameter), in most cases all that you need to use Harv templates is the first four authors' last names and the year. E.g.: write {{Harv|Smith|Jones|Brown|2004}}, and everything else is done automagically. You can also add (e.g.) "|p=4", "|pp=23-28", or "|loc=§2" to specify page, pages, or location. Simple!

By "multi-part citations" I presume you mean where there is more than one full citation in the notes. This can be hard to read, so they are put into list format, typically with a bullet. (See WP:BUNDLING.) Alternately, some editors do break them up into separate notes, as Gorthian did in the logging section. But this can create long strings of footnote links (the superscripted bracketed numbers), which many people find repulsive. This is a good reason for using short cites: you can string them together in a single footnote. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:12, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Believe it or not I interpolated extensive responses to yours above; got squeezed for time; then lost my copy. I can't take it on again; no big deals; I do appreciate the dialogue, don't agree on all the details, will have to leave it at that for now. Thanks again. Swliv (talk) 22:16, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

I also appreciate dialogue, and in turn thank you. Although sometimes digestion is aided if we can take smaller bites to more thoroughly chew. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:34, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Disruptive editing at Earthquake prediction

JJ, I believe that your editing at this article has been disruptive, in that you seem very revert-happy, and your approach to discussion seems to be to ridicule and dismiss opposing opinion, and then claim that people who disagree with you are not contributing to the discussion. You frequently characterize the views of other editors as "whining," and you tend to Wikilawyer. Looking at the past year of activity at this article, this seems like a chronic problem. I hope that you can begin to meet the other editors half-way and engage in collaborative editing, so that it won't be necessary to ask for outside intervention. Do you see a possibility that you might do that? Joe Bodacious (talk) 03:39, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Joe, I would love to engage in collaborative editing; that is my ideal. But that is rather difficult when folks like the Wichita sockpuppet won't engage in the necessary discussion. I also hold to certain principles — the Misplaced Pages principles. But I deny your wikilawyering charge and its imputation that I am misusing the rules or policies. I suspect that the basis for this is that you feel I am opposing a consensus established by you at the others at the RfC. (Right?) But please note two things: 1) I am not opposed to changing the disputed sentence (though I am opposed to "A"), but I need you to be more definite about what is wrong. 2) Consensus is supposed to be built on discussion, and on solid arguments. Aside from your comments (and mine) there has been no discussion of the merits or dis-merits of either formulation. You and the others may be thinking you have a solid basis, but as I keep showing: you don't. Which is not to say "you lose", only that you need to do a better job explaining your objection. (Responding to my questions might help resolve some matters. Or even just settling on a specific objection.) Yes, I wish to co-labor-ate with you. But I am not psychic, you need to help me here.

E.g.: you objected to "chicanery" because it implied maliciousness to those who predict earthquakes. And I responded, only to the extent that some unidentified "those" are engaged in deceptive practices. Does that resolve the matter for you? Or do you still have an objection on this point? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:57, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Joe Bodacious (talk) 22:32, 20 April 2014 (UTC)