User talk:J. Johnson

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Getting started
Getting help
Policies and guidelines

The community

Writing articles
Miscellaneous

A handy collection of useful links.

Canonical IPCC citations.[edit]

The canonical forms for citing the IPCC documents are at:

Ask if you have questions or need assistance.

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

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 Wikipedia (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 Wikipedia 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)

Your edits[edit]

I note that of your last 100 edits, which go back one month, you have only made four edits to articles, one of which was a reversion of vandalism. Do you think you would find it more satisfying to work on some article improvement? There is nothing wrong with doing meta-content work, but my experience is editing articles is (usually) more fun. It certainly puts your comment here about "real work" into perspective, in my opinion. What do you think? --John (talk) 10:19, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

I am inclined to agree with you that writing articles is generally more satisfying. (Excepting, of course, when the yahoos jump in.) But why are you so concerned about my edits? Aren't you really trying to draw me away from WT:Manual of Style#ships as .22she.22.2C additional points, where you are of an opposite position? You are kind to be solicitous of my well-being, but should we not be even more concerned about Sdkenned, who has barely forty edits in all? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:06, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Sept vs Sep for September[edit]

FYI

Sept vs Sep for September — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robert - Northern VA (talkcontribs) 05:24, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Yakima Fold Belt Reply[edit]

Pleased to see that User:Brianhe started the Yakima Fold Belt article. Not into Wikiediting at the current time. Keep up the good work.

Thanks - Williamborg (Bill) 00:12, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Blue Hills[edit]

Hi, you might want to look at the new draft Draft:Blue Hills (Washington). There's a section on geology you can probably improve. I'll probably let the draft incubate till next weekend then move it to article space. — Brianhe (talk) 16:37, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice. Yes, I can do a bit on the geology (and there is some significant geology), but I'll have to go back to the sources; that will take two or three weeks. (Currently I am plowing through a mass of YFB sources.) I have also been considering for some while of replacing the photo, and have a photographer who is interested. Would you be willing to hold off on promoting the draft for a while to get this stuff in? Sure, it can always be added later, but I rather like giving articles as good a start as I can. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:00, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
I'll wait if you like. Another option might be to plan to promote Seattle Uplift to its own article. Also, which photo do you mean to replace? I only put one in Blue Hills this morning but if you have a better one, that's great. -- Brianhe (talk) 21:32, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
Yes, that would be appreciated. The picture I have in mind the "Blue Hills from the east" — well, actually, from the northeast, and particularly from Clyde Hill. There is a much better shot from Queen Anne Hill, or even Sunset Hill, provided we can get the lighting/atmosphere/weather just right.
I'm disinclined to promote "Seattle Uplift". It's not prominent (like the Blue Hills) nor notable, and probably adequately handled as a subtopic in the Seattle/Tacoma fault articles. Although there is a little awkwardness in spanning two articles. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:26, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
Looking at various images on the Internet, it looks like Bay Street in Port Orchard should have some outstanding views. Check this out: Flickr, Google Maps street view nearby (Mitchell Point). I'm over there from time to time and will bring a DSLR next time. Brianhe (talk) 22:00, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
The picture at Gold Mountain (Washington) appears to be from around Mitchell Point. Though I am inclined towards a longer-range view from Seattle to get some context into the picture. (The Bowen viewpoint on QA looks good. I've got a test shot with a ferry in the foreground headed into Eagle Harbor.) One problem with all of these images (so far) is that there are distinctly three humps, and I haven't sorted out them out yet. If you're down by Federal Way you might see if there are good views from any of the bluffs. Maybe even White Center, above Fauntleroy? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:23, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
There's a clue in the picture - the description says "from the water". I wanted to ask where Joe took that picture at the Seattle meetup yesterday, but he wasn't there. It looks almost identical to a pic my daughter took from the state ferry in mid-Sinclair Inlet, so I wouldn't be surprised if he took it in about the same place. But it could also be from the shoreline. Spent some time today with an atlas and a ruler, and am pretty sure I've figured out what the bumps are, at least on the Eastside picture, have annotated here: [1]. Pretty sure they are the same three in the picture at Gold Mountain (Washington), namely, Kitsap Lookout, Gold Mountain and Green Mountain. Gold Mountain is easy to tell from the antenna farm, and Green Mountain has the one tower that I listed in the article Green Mountain (Kitsap County, Washington). I'm only 80% sure that the bump between the snowy Olympic peak and the marina is a 1,045 foot knoll about halfway between Kitsap Lookout and Peak 1320. Unlike the others, this one doesn't seem to be listed on any climbing guides.
I can probably head over to Clyde Hill next time it's clear, maybe tomorrow if the weather report is correct. Where do you think is a good vantage point? Brianhe (talk) 02:19, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
 I'm running kind of fast and tired right now, so haven't looked too closely (yet). But, yes, we should sort out those peaks. Kitsap Lookout is the leftmost peak (from Seattle)? Lacking a plane to do a "fly-view" I may try some more Google Street-view from various points. I'm also watching for opportunities of sun angle or fog that might distinguish them.
 I don't know that Clyde Hill offers any prospects better than what can be done from (e.g.) Queen Anne. But consider seeing what White Center or West Seattle might offer. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:58, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I think your list (below) has got the peaks nailed down. I've done some more checking; I am confident the middle peak as seen from Seattle is Gold Mountain. I looked from QA this morning, and the morning sun definitely provides a better view. I'm thinking a sprinkling of snow would make a good picture. Will be watching for an opportunity. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:19, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Have a look at List of mountains and hills of Kitsap County, Washington too. I think this is probably suitable for a standalone list, cross-referenced to the Blue Hills article. Brianhe (talk) 05:44, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

What that article needs is a clickable imagemap! Get a good map image, and set it up like at YFB. Only the links can go straight into your table. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:42, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
I took a snap today from Mitchell Point with my cell phone just to see how it would turn out. Now I wish I'd brought the DSLR! See User:Brianhe/Blue Hills gallery. — Brianhe (talk) 03:10, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Google Streetview has a nice shot from White Center (Marine View Drive) that's far enough south to give a different perspective. (I.e., Kitsap Lookout is in front of Gold Mtn.) In regard of what view would be familiar to most people, I think there are three main candidates: 1) West Seattle/White Center, 2) Queen Anne Hill (essentially same view from downtown to Crown Hill), and 3) from the ferry boat (Port Orchard, etc.) I'm inclined to favor QA as the main image, with the others as smaller, supplementary views. But definitely with morning sun, so the hills are not just shadow outlines. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:08, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Did you see the imagemap test at my gallery? That picture was taken from Port Orchard about 10:30 AM (daylight time) and it looks pretty good. Agree that morning light, well before solar noon, is best. I have seen views from the Space Needle which look great, assume that Q.A. would also make a good vantage though I haven't actually seen one from there yet. — Brianhe (talk) 00:24, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
Yes, saw it. I have some reservations about that one, in part that it is, as the file name says, "and PSNS", which distracts from any focus on the Blue Hills. Also, being up close and low gives Kitsap Lookout a prominence that slightly dwarfs Gold Mountain. I have a couple of shots from QA and/or Sunset Hill, and at this very moment am negotiating with the photographer about uploading them. These are working shots, not the best quality, but show what can be seen. Okay if I link them in your gallery? That will make for easier comparison. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:25, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
Belay my last! She doesn't want to upload working shots, only finished quality. Which we don't have yet. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:42, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
Feel free to use the gallery for other tests. -- Brianhe (talk) 22:02, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

I've modified the imagemap test in your gallery to illustrate linking to a local list, which I think this is less disruptive to the reader than linking all the way to another article. I'm thinking that something like this could be done in Blue Hills. We could also add an imagemap to the the lidar image, going to the same list, so the reader can access the members of this grouping either vertically or chorizo-natally (no?). The list allows some minimal description of each identifiable hill without having a separate (and woefully unnotable) article, or even a section. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:37, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Per WP:GEOLAND each feature at List of mountains and hills of Kitsap County, Washington may not be individually notable, but I think the whole list is—it already has two sources and there are probably more. For proof of existence of such lists, see List of mountains and hills of County Dublin (same order of magnitude area) or List of mountains and hills in the Netherlands (three features, European high point 1,059 feet!). Problem with folding them all together is that about half the county high points are not in the Blue Hills. And standalone lists of geographic features are kind of an established feature of Wikipedia, even on a by-US-county basis (e.g. List of rivers of Orange County, California). I don't see a strong reason to leave out points of interest in Kitsap County.
The imagemap is going to be problematic linking in to any list, whether in-page or not, because unless the list is fairly long, it doesn't scroll properly to the subject you selected. It seems to work OK on List of mountains and hills until you get to items at the bottom of the list. Whatever image we end up with will probably highlight the Blue Hills, not the other Kitsap County locations, so it would be natural to put the imagemap on that article, and if there's going to be a standalone list, it makes sense to me to link to that. — Brianhe (talk) 22:54, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
 It seems to me you may be tilting at a non-existent issue. In regards of your stand-alone list of Kitsap highpoints the only suggestion I would make is that an imagemap (possibly in place of the Google map link?) might be useful; I haven't made any suggestion of leaving points out or merging that list with the Blue Hills. What I had in mind for the Blue Hills imagemap is a short list of only those points visible in whatever photo gets put up, being a subset of the stand-alone list both in membership and content. These entries could then link to where ever is appropriate. (I'll add a couple of links to show that.)
 I'm not clear on what you mean by not scrolling properly.Are you perhaps referring to the point in the text linked to not appearing at the top of the page when there is less than a full page below it? At any rate, not, I think, an imagemap problem. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 17:56, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
 Okay, I've added filler text to the imagemap in your gallery; see if that fixes the scrolling problem. I've also added links from the list there to the stand-alone list. And check this: if you link to List of mountains and hills of Kitsap County, Washington#Kitsap Lookout the upper part of "Kitsap" is cut-off. This is because the link centers horizontally on the anchor, which is the index number. If you link to List of mountains and hills of Kitsap County, Washington#Peak 1330 this does not happen, because I switched the anchor to the label ("Peak 1330"). ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 18:47, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
Regarding tilting at nonexistent problems, sorry, I thought one of your earlier comments said you thought List of mountains and hills was non-notable. Completely agree that an imagemap with visible peaks labeled would be a Good Thing. Just waiting to see what we can come up with that's better than my sad cell phone snapshot.
Regarding the scrolling problem, yes, it would be great if the browser page would start with the thing you selected, or at least show what you had selected somehow (kind of like what happens currently when you select one of the citations from the notes in the B.H. draft as in this example). But it does not. I think the filler text would have to be at least one page long for the viewer's page size, which is highly variable, which is part of the problem with linking to anchors. But I don't know any way around it; the filler text looks pretty terrible and is nonstandard on Wikipedia, and adds problems like not being able to see the article categories. The "visible anchor" tag is a great addition to the list of peaks article, I hadn't been aware of its existence until you added the one.
Here's an interesting new resource to consider. I was looking for more sources to establish that the Blue Hills are prominent from the Seattle environs and found this: viewfinderpanoramas.org Queen Anne digital panorama Now I'm motivated to find out if the Black Hills west of Olympia are really visible from there!
Your suggested next steps to get the Blue Hills article online? — Brianhe (talk) 21:40, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
The image I see at viewfinderpanorama is pretty low quality. It does reminde me of an interesting app for the Ipad (?) — peakfinder? — which provides an outline of peaks visible from one's current location and in the direction the Ipad is pointing.
 I don't think we have to establish that the Blue Hills are prominent from Seattle (or Tacome?). That's a "blue sky" ("blue hill"?!) thing, readily apparent given the images.
 The filler text in the demo is just filler for the sake of the demo. In actual use there would be the whole rest of the article below the list. As to highlighting the anchor: the example you point to is built into the citation template. I don't know if that is available for regular anchors.
 Addtional work? A first-rate image, of course. That might take a few weeks, so I wouldn't hold up promoting the article on that account. Even without an image I think a list of the peaks would be useful. That could also be imagemapped to the lidar image, though I'm holding out for some imagery that isn't cut-off on the east eside. The last sentence in Hydrology is rather lame (with a lamer reference). I think the watershed is rather significant, and certainly should be mentioned. Likewise the park. (I think DNR has an on-line map for it.Yes!) The "steep-walled canyons which have been eroded to depths as great as 1,000 feet" fails the laugh test (the rivers and creeks here are too level to do that much eroding), but I haven't tackled on how to replace that yet. And some minor cruft. Aside from the image/imagemap stuff, about a week of worki? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:53, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
The DNR map can be found "officially" at ref #5 in Green Mountain (Kitsap County, Washington). I agree about the thousand foot canyon thing, it was in an old text and I wondered if it was guys in DC looking at a map or something. Will keep looking for watershed substantial watershed text; there's at least a city map, ref #6 at Green Mountain, though it doesn't distinguish the watershed from buildable land. - Brianhe (talk) 23:44, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
Official watershed map is in the City of Bremerton's "Zoning Code & Map" here: [2]. It's abutted by "city utility lands" protecting the watershed to the east. Boundaries are irregular but I think it's safe to say the watershed is entirely in the Blue Hills. I created Casad Dam too while I was doing research. — Brianhe (talk) 04:37, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
 Sceva might have meant "a thousand-foot deep canyon with minor erosion at the bottom." Tabor et al. have it a little better. I'm still working on how to best rewrite that.
 Last night it occurred to me that I should underline the importance of hydrology to the Kitsap Peninsula. Three points might be noted. 1) Per Sceva (WSP 1413) aquifers are limited, and often low-quality or limited capacity. 2) The Kitsap Peninsula does not have access to mountain reservoirs supplied by winter snowpack. 3) The Bremerton watershed, being located at the southern end where rainfall is heaviest, and where Gold Mountain helps to catch precipitation, is the most signficant source of water in the entire peninsula. This should be worth a paragraph.
 Today I'm working on uploading two map images (for your further delectation!). Maybe some more ref work. I see you fixed the "Crop and Livestock Bulletin" ref, but I am thinking that reference is dated and low-quality, and might be dropped. (E.g.: "remain forested"? When most all of the hills have been logged at least once since then?). ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:54, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
Cliff Mass wrote about how the hills above Everett's reservoir catches excessive amounts of rain just the way you describe[3]. If somebody else has looked at the Union River Res's catchment the same way it would be a great inclusion. There's a hint of it at the work by Casad that I added to Casad Dam but I can only read the first page. He does mention that the watersheds are "limited" and rivers and streams are small. — Brianhe (talk) 21:43, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
New images in your gallery! The shaded-relief image you've been working with was the underlay for SIM 3187, the revised Wildcat Lake Quad., which is why it is cut-off on the east side. Both of the new images extend east, which I think is a great improvement for giving the reader the whole context. However, the first (psdem) is not quite as finely detailed (does that matter?). And while the second (wsp) has a lot of additional detail I like (like the streets of Bremerton), the colors make it a bit garish. It's nice for showing the different rock types, but I am not certain how well people not used to geological maps will take to it. What do you think? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:18, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
I do like the colored geological map better, for the greater context of the area that it gives, plus it outlines where the hills actually are better than anything else that's currently in the article. — Brianhe (talk) 01:11, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
It outlines the rock formations, which is reasonably correlative with the topography. I think the shaded-relief is clearer on the topography, but hell, I'm so for and against both of those images I'll just go with whichever you prefer. The question is how will it work at a reduced size. I'll drop that into the draft so we can see how looks. If it's good enough I may start on an imagemap. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:05, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 Hmm, not too bad. By the way, I think we should swap the Hydrology and Geology sections, as the topographic aspect, which is most notable for most people, more naturally segues into geology. Which then sets the stage for hydrology. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:13, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
I see you added a block of hydrology sources. Is there any particular reason to not collate them with the rest of the sources? Well, one reason might be "pending futher processing". And I would recommend vertical format, as I find it clearer to read and edit. If it's okay with you I'll run that block through a script I have to reformat it. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:31, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
P.S. Lacking any other suitable "recreation" oriented images, would that first image of the Blue Hills serve to show the nature of the characteristic working forest? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:41, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
The hydrology stuff was just in one place for convenience. Of course they should be sorted/collated with everything else. I'm not sure what you mean vertical format? Let me see what I can find for recreation, I'm sure there's a picture of mountain biking or something on flickr or somewhere else we can use. — Brianhe (talk) 20:48, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 "Vertical" is how I formatted the references in the first part of "Sources": most (not all) parameters are on their own line. Much clearer to read, check, and edit. Distinguished from simply having each parameter in-line, one after the other, and one has to scan the line to find each parameter. I also do the closing braces of each template at the start of a new line (much easier to see the end of the template), indent each parameter line one space, and close-up the vertical bar and equals sign with the parameter name — but a space after the equals sign! — because all the extraneous spaces confuse the scanning. Techniques I learned from programming. I'll take a copy of those refs, and perhaps I'll have time to process them tonight.
 I see the new "Recreation" picture. But it is quite generic, could be any western Washington woodland. The picture at the top is specific to the Blue Hills, and (I think) better shows the general nature of this area.
 By the way, I have a copy of the WSP image marked-up for an imagemap. If you want to send me an e-mail I'll send you a copy to review. At the least I need to determine where to put the Bremerton outline, not being familiar with how that city has grown since this map was made. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:46, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
Not thrilled with the trail picture either, but it's what I could find. I think whatever goes in for recreation, should show people doing something in the hills ... golfing, biking, horseback, fishing, boating, camping or motorcycling. The aerial pic of the partially logged forest does not convey "recreation" in my mind but rather "resource extraction".
I can wait to see the imagemap until it's uploaded. A good sense of where the city has been built up can be gained from the online mapping services "satellite" views. Note that large parts of incorporated Bremerton aren't built up and never will be, being forest reserves and the watershed. — Brianhe (talk) 00:53, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
Recreation as filtered through resource extraction? Recreation as a form of resource? :-)
Okay, I'll work up the imagemap with what I have, and we can supplement or modify as needed. I was thinking of marking some of the faults on the image, but that's seeming like too much work for now. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:06, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

break[edit]

I have revised the lead. In particular, I merged the first sentence from Etymology, and removed the rest, as it seemed like a dubious assertion that verged on original research. Also playing around with the distant view image, but perhaps that should wait until we get a better image. And added a section on mines (mainly the tin mine).

Mines?[edit]

I've read somewhere (where? when?) that Gold Mountain got its name because someone found (or thought they found?) gold. Which seems rather unlikely, even as nuggets brought down by the glacier. Even less likely (or so I would think) would be the existence of tin ore, so it is quite curious there is a definite mine, allegedly for tin. Further investigation seems warranted. I have found a mention of the tin mine from 1917. See this. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:00, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Summitpost claims there were gold mines there.[4] The USGS quads have several quarries, there is a tin mine trail[5] and some people have posted pictures of what they say is the tin mine itself, e.g. [6],called gold mine. — Brianhe (talk) 00:37, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
There is no doubt of the existence of the shaft for the "tin" mine, although one source says there was no measurable tin ore. I also have a location for a surface mine that might have been gold mine, but I can't find any documentation. I've spent the morning perusing early Washington state geological publications, and aside from that one reference I can't find any mention of these mines. Know anyone that would like to do a little "field" research at the Kitsap Historical Society? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:55, 29 October 2014 (UTC) P.S. All of the pictures I've seen (over several years) appear to be of a single shaft, which is the "tin mine". I suspect there is only the one shaft, the only other mine (excluding non-metallic quarries) being surface. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:18, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
Note the new section. Though all the pictures of "the" mine shaft I've seen seem to be the same shaft, I have two sources claiming more than one. I wonder if anyone has ever thoroughly tramped around that area to see what might be found. (But roped in?) Several open questions (cobalt?), but answering them will probably require going through physical historial records. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:00, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────So, it's been a month since the draft started, I'd really like to pit this up as an article. Brianhe (talk) 23:21, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I think it's close. I now have an excellent panoramic view (taken this morning) which I'll upload soon (ah, likely tomorrow), and I'd like to try some copy edits. Three or four days? I'm not done trying to document any gold mining, but I doubt that would change anything we have so far, and can be added later. BTW, I asked my resident economic geologist about the liklihood of cobalt ore in the area, and he thought only in someone's dream. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:12, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
Can't wait to see the panorama. Another day and it would probably have had snow! Brianhe (talk) 02:40, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
As noted elsewhere, the panorama is in! I also tweaked the first paragraph under "Mining" about no evidence of any gold mines. "Summitpost" can claim all he wants, but until there is a reliable source documenting same it is just a popular legend, and probably enhanced and amplified in the course of oral transmission. Possibly some settler tried panning for ore, may even have filed a claim, but it is quite unlikely there was any working mine. The place to look for any information would be the Kitsap Historical Society and the county archives (where claims would be filed). Of course, if a claim was filed before Washington was even a territory the paper work would have been filed in Portland. And conceivably might now be in the federal archives out at Sand Point. I don't think this will be resolved soon, so I think it shouldn't hold up promoting this to an article ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:22, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Other Washington geotopics to start[edit]

J., I'm thinking of starting articles for the following. If you have any thoughts or references to dump on them, dump away.

Hope you had a good weekend, and cheers. — Brianhe (talk) 18:48, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

 Chopped out three downed trees; that was kind of fun. Or rather: satisfying.
 Chehalis Gap? That's entirely a topographical/meteorological feature, and even there I doubt it warrants more than passing mention. Certainly not a water gap (much too broad). Its presence/formation has nothing to do with geology as such, more like the side effect of broader tectonic action that raised a series of folds (Chehalis Basin as syncline, Willapa Hills as anticline), where the "wavelength" (width) of the folds may be determined in part by the thickness of the crust. And perhaps affected by how the Crescent terrane has fractured into micro-blocks.
 I haven't considered what all geotopics in this region might be covered, but the several coal districts (including Chehalis-Centralia, also Renton and Roslyn) would seem more notable. Or the Osceola mudflow. There's also quite a few geological questions in the North Cascades, and along the northern edge of Washington. Just a little further afield: volcanoes in Portland! ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:10, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Is the description here incorrect? "The Chehalis follows the former valley of a much larger river. During the maximum ice extent during the last glacial period melt water from the Puget lobe ice sheet drained to the ocean via what is now the Chehalis River. The river that carved that valley was a much bigger river than the Chehalis."
I'm also interested in history of coal & iron production in the PNW, in fact I created Kirkland Steel Mill last year. I toured Centralia Coal Mine in my youth, and it made quite an impression. — Brianhe (talk) 20:40, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Love it! I may read that tonight rather than work on an imagemap. I have long wondered what Kirk was up to, and just where. And just where he thought there was iron ore. Possible GA, no?
If you wish to nom GA, be my guest. I hadn't been working towards it, but wouldn't mind having one to my credit, either. - BH
The Chehalis River was indeed much bigger during The Ice (about the size of the Columbia River, to judge by the canyon in the continental shelf) because it got all the drainage on the east side of the ice. But it did not fill, let alone create, the broad gap between the Willapa Hills and the Olympic foothills. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:06, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
I see. The idea of its being a water gap was fixed in my mind for some reason. — Brianhe (talk) 21:53, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Ah, here's an idea for you: the blast furnace at Port Hadlock-Irondale, Washington. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:07, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Satsop Hills draft[edit]

FYI, I posted a new draft: Draft:Satsop Hills. - Brianhe (talk) 04:43, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Hostility[edit]

I don't know what I've said or done that has upset you but please discuss it with me instead of dragging down the proposal I have made at WP:COPYWITHIN by insulting me and accusing me of all kinds of things suggesting that I have partisan rather than good-faith interests in the outcome of the discussion. I am not making the proposal for any evil purpose and I am not proposing anything extreme. If you can let me know how I'm bothering you then I can try to modify my behavior. I can't promise anything but I do want you to know that I'm interested in working with you and I'd like the hostility to end. -Thibbs (talk) 23:02, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

You seem to be a touch over-sensitive. Your "insulting me and accusing me of all kinds of things" appears to be an inaccurate paraphrase of JJ's "The proposal is driven entirely by partisan concerns in a discussion elsewhere, not a good-faith concern arising from any issues in this guideline". I don't think such an inaccurate paraphrase is a useful beginning of an attempt to find common ground. Oh course, you might mean something entirely different; who knows? But its really better to be precise rather than vague William M. Connolley (talk) 23:26, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
Well it's that after he had previously said "Thibbs has confused these different issues in the other discussion (regarding copying citations without verifying them), citing this policy in support. That this guideline does not support his position he is now attemping to fix by adding poorly formulated text that text is unneeded, unuseful, and even irrelevant to this guideline." I have not confused the two issues, I was not the editor who cited this policy in support of my view, and I disagree with the characterization of my arguments as partisan. Perhaps I'm just used to less flowery objections to my proposals. J. Johnson and I have had good discussions in the past where my good-faith was not brought into question. -Thibbs (talk) 23:40, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Note: I struck and reworded the section William M. Connolley believes to be harmful to finding common ground. -Thibbs (talk) 23:47, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
  My apologies if I have given offense. [Apology stricken, as there is no end to Thibbs' taking offense, or giving offense, and it's been just a big waste of time trying to sort things out with him.] I do think your proposal is ill-advised (and poorly formulated), but no hostility is meant, and certainly no insult was intended. I think my criticism of your proposal is objectively valid, and if not, then should be refutable on an objective basis. If there is any particular point where I have failed in this, or if you have any special sensitivities I should avoid trodding on, please advise me. But on the other hand (and noting William's comment) could you consider that your proposal may be ill-advised? Please note that though I think your proposal is tinged with partisanship, I do not consider this to be any kind of mortal sin or general failure of character; I deem it no more than a minor misstep, readily forgiven.
  I'm afraid I did not fully follow your last comment at the CS1 discussion (my eyes are getting bleary), but you might find my response to Prototime largely applicable to the questions you have raised there. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:25, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
You'll have to explain to me why you think it's ill-advised, but yes I would be happy to consider your thoughts. Have no worries about my special sensitivities. This is your talk page and as far as I'm concerned you may speak as freely as you wish here. Thank you for both your apology and your kind offer of forgiveness for what you regard as my missteps. You can be sure I've forgiven yours as well.
Regarding my last comment at the WP:CITE discussion (I assume this is what you mean by CS1), my major point is that it is helpful to spell out ambiguities in the guidelines where they would naturally be expected. For guidelines on Copying within Wikipedia I think it would be helpful to address whether or not attributive links to the parent article must be given in cases like splits and merges where, in the course of copying material from a parent article to a child or from a child to a parent, offline citations are often moved without reverifying them. The details I included were all about specific cases where I would consider reverification of offline sources to be necessary, possibly necessary, or unnecessary. Your response to Prototime was somewhat applicable, but I think it was directed more at cases where reverification is clearly necessary and I think you neglected to address those cases like splits and merges where the splitting or merging editor is performing purely mechanical actions instead of introducing new information. -Thibbs (talk) 01:59, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
Thank you. I am pleased to address any questions you may have. I think we agree that there needs to be clarification of when citations need to be re-verified; that is the discussion at WT:Citing_sources#A related offense. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:00, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
Yes I agree clarification is needed here. I hope you don't view this as impertinent, but I've responded to your suggestion that I drop my proposal by saying that I will stop discussing the content of the proposed text, but I would like to continue discussing whether the COPYWITHIN guideline is an appropriate place to address the issue being discussed on the WP:CITE talkpage. I believe that whether or not we can admit it our views on the basic underlying issue are nearly in alignment. But our disagreement on whether COPYWITHIN should be restricted to only copyright-related copying concerns runs a bit deeper and may require further discussion that doesn't relate to the WP:CITE discussion. We can either introduce clarification into COPYWITHIN or not regardless of which view on splits/merges/etc achieves consensus at WP:CITE. Thanks for your explanation of the "ill-advised" comment, by the way. -Thibbs (talk) 00:21, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
As I just said at Wikipedia_talk:Copying within Wikipedia, re-verification is incidental to CWW; WP:Verifiability is definitely the appropriate venue for verification issues. But until the CS discussion resolves it would be best to not be tearing up the ground we're standing on. For that reason alone your proposal should be withdrawn. Note that does not preclude future proposals, which I will be happy to discuss with you here. Even if you want to discuss the proper scope of CWW there, I strongly recommend withdrawing your proposal. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:38, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
Well the proposed text had in fact maintained the incidental nature of re-verification with respect to attribution in the context of copying within Wikipedia so I'm not sure why that stuck out as a problem for you. But regardless, I have given it a lot of thought and come to the conclusion that without further information regarding your view on whether splits and merges constitute the addition of novel claims, I am unable to be certain that my proposal didn't put your possible objections in jeopardy. So I've withdrawn the proposal for now and I humbly request an answer to this baseline question. You might consider beginning with the 5 questions I posed at WT:CITE (link here). -Thibbs (talk) 07:08, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
Thank you. I will consider your questions immediately, and respond as soon as I think I have worthy answers. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk)
Thanks I appreciate it. So far there is universal agreement on the ones that underlie the proposal I had made so depending on when you answer we may be able to open up that proposal again quite soon. I eagerly await your answers! -Thibbs (talk) 12:34, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
I hope I will adequately reward your patience, and soon. But I'm still hacking through a big thicket of work. I am sometimes amazed at those editors that turn out an edit every three minutes or so, for hours on end. Surely there is more to life than nine thousand keystrokes a day. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:40, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I'm quite busy myself just recently so I understand. If you wish you can answer the questions one at a time until all five have been answered. That might be easier than doing all five in one go. -Thibbs (talk) 06:46, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry to say that even after your recent response I am still unable to guess what your answers to the five numbered questions would be. We are making progress because you were able to determine the subject matter of the questions. But the remainder of your comment was too rushed and brief to give me any insight into whether you believe that cases like splits and merges (where the splitting or merging editor is performing purely mechanical actions) necessitate mandatory reverification by the splitting or merging editor. If you could answer just the five numbered questions that would be extremely helpful. If you don't intend to answer these questions that is OK too. Please let me know, though. -Thibbs (talk) 00:57, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
I am sorry you are unable to grasp something so simple. I am dubious of the usefulness of your five questions (perhaps you grasp examples better than principles?), but will endeavor to give satisfaction. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:17, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
No worries. You're far from the first person to give me an answer to a question I didn't ask. Feel free to assume that I grasp examples better than principles. But do answer the 5 questions when you get a moment. You are the only person on whose answer I'm waiting so that I can move forward with the proposal at COPYWITHIN that you pushed me to temporarily withdraw despite the advice of other editors. I never guessed it would take so long to get an answer from you on this, but I am very encouraged by your statement that you will endeavor to satisfy my curiosity later tonight. Thank you J. Johnson. -Thibbs (talk) 04:31, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
I have provided considered responses, though you may find them not entirely pleasing. I do presume your questions were honest inquiries for elucidation, and not some kind of provocation. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:48, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

On the contrary, I am pleased simply that you've answered them in some form. They were indeed honest inquiries, although your responses ("Nice trick question.", "Fine example of forced-choice answers", etc.) has rather failed to convey your presumption as to their honesty. I regret that my impatience for your answers may have caused you to lose some good faith in me (I refer here to the repeated "snotty" ad hominems and the "dick" comments) but I know that these things can happen when editors disagree and I haven't taken them to heart. I hope we can put this behind us now. -Thibbs (talk) 01:56, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

I think you should own up to a bit of snottishness with your continuing remarks in the nature of "We're on the sixth day since I asked the 5 questions", that I have "made light of them", and failed to provide an answer, as well as your imputation that "it was so confusing for you", which necessitated "fanciful discursions". Also, and quite irregardless of your sincerity or moral character, your question #1 does have aspects of a trick question. If that was not intended then it would be more civil to clarify that rather than impugn my honesty. Likewise with your question #2, and I am sorry for you if truly do not understand how those work. (You should not take my example personally, that was only an example that I hoped would be clearer and simpler for you to understand.) I have been trying to not offend any of your sensivities; you really should reciprocate and stop slipping in these uncivil comments. Continuation would demonstrate deliberate provocation. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 01:54, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
It takes no special sensitivity to dislike being repeatedly called "snotty", "right confused", and (as I raised above) "partisan". Does this really represent your best effort at "trying to not offend any of [my] sensivities"? Because they feel more like snide ad hominem rejoinders to imagined offenses.
Despite the fact that 3rd party review (as seen in Prototime's summary of the positions) places my position (and Jc3s5h's) as at worst a compromise between your position and the position of every other editor who has commented so far, you seem to view my opinion as particularly unsavory. Please don't let your problems with my manner of expression taint your objective consideration of my opinions. Should I have pushed you to come up with an answer to my question in less than one week's time? I'll admit that had I anticipated your reaction I probably would not have. At any rate what I am now asking is for you to de-escalate. The atmosphere at WT:CITE has become toxic and from the low rate of responses over the last few days I believe it may be interfering with a community discussion. Let us put an end to the name calling and the belittling comments. They don't advance the discussion in any meaningful way. Let us agree to comment only on the content and not on the contributor. -Thibbs (talk) 07:46, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
  It is remarkable that your sensitivities seem to run only one way. A problem compounded by your tendency to over-interpret, and to make unwarranted assumptions. E.g., my "don't get snotty" remark followed your badgering comment where you complained it had been six days "without providing an answer" (more accurately, not one that you liked) where another editor took less than 15 minutes, you are so tired of "waiting and waiting for ... a straight answer". You go on with "languorous pace" and "coyly dancing around the questions", proceeding to insinuations of delaying tactics and evasion (so clever of you to insinuate, then deny you were making any implications), when I had just told I would get to your questions. (Or were they not worth more than 15 minutes?) All that sounds like a whiney child. Is that your intention?
  And then there are your various other little snipes. Like your latest at CWW ("I understand you are unable to see this connection ...."). Or (at CS), my goodness, "other hysterics". I had previously said only that your comments were "snotty", but your continuing behavior could be a fair reflection on your character. So by all means, please cease with the belittling comments. And apologize for the "hysterics" to show that you don't really mean that. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:36, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────No you failed provide an answer to the series of questions I had written. The intent of them was to determine where along a spectrum your position actually lay. It was the rough-analogy equivalent of asking "1) Is a billion a large number? 2) Is a million a large number? 3) Is a thousand a large number? 4) is a hundred a large number? 5) Is anything larger than single digits a large number?" You response was to belittle the questions as "legalistic hair-splitting" and then to give me a dictionary definition of "large". You then incorrectly explained to me my own position on "large" numbers and then made efforts to debunk my supposed position. And you concluded with a statement equivalent to "Basically my position is that large numbers should be listed first" - a statement that still dodged my question about what was meant by "large". That is not an answer at all. My questions were absolutely not worth more than 15 minutes. I just wanted to know where you stood on splits, merges, and simple acts of community-dictated mechanical copying. I regret that my impatient tone sounded "snotty" to you, but my intention was not to sound like a "whiney child" to you and I am sad to see that this is how you view an earnest desire to understand your position in a timely manner.

The other "snipes" are nothing more than factual observations. From your statements at CWW it is quite apparent to the world that you are unable to see that the paragraph in discussion is about verification. And at CS there can be no other word but hysterical for your proposal: "BTW, your sneer about my diagram is unuseful and uncivil. But if that is where you want to go, perhaps your mother can show you how to make your display bigger." My suggesting that your diagram falls short is absolutely not a sneer and how can you suggest that "unuseful and uncivil" is "where [I] want to go" only hours after I have asked you to de-escalate? This rhetoric is poisoning the discussion and this back-and-forth at your talk page is no longer productive. I won't bother you here any longer. You can continue to disagree with me all you want but you have heard my plea for rhetorical de-escalation and the rest is up to you. You have my thanks in advance.-Thibbs (talk) 14:43, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Now you tell me that your questions weren't worth 15 minutes of my time. Well, that's something we can agree on. Perhaps that is why you misunderstand so much: you don't take enough time. Perhaps you are halfway to seeing that your impatient demands for answers, and your complaint that parts of the diagram were only 2 mm across (so enlarge it!!), were, at best, petulant. You have been extremely quick to take offense, but quite blind in giving it. Your complaint that I failed to assume good faith towards you is itself a failure to assume good faith. I have tried to give you a good hearing, but it was wasted effort. As you don't seem to believe in apologies I am retracting mine. Now please don't bother me anymore. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 01:17, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

(undent)I've watched this discussion play out and suggest that both parties read about the available dispute resolution procedures before somebody makes more regrettable and consequential statements. — Brianhe (talk) 06:21, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Which seems like good advice if this were to be continued. But I'm just about out of patience trying to deal with someone so quick to take offence, and am so doubtful of any likely resolution where we have such fundamentally divergent views of what should be commonplace observations, that I'd rather just move on. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:37, 23 November 2014 (UTC)