User talk:J. Johnson

Getting started A tutorial • Our five pillars • Getting mentored How to: edit a page • upload and use images Getting help Frequently asked questions • Tips Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Policies and guidelines Neutral point of view • No original research Verifiability • Reliable sources • Citing sources What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability

The community Build consensus • Resolve disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community Portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Writing articles Be bold in editing • Develop an article The perfect article • Manual of style Stubs • Categories • Disambiguation Pages needing attention • Peer review Miscellaneous User name • User pages • Talk pages Clean up: General - Spam - Vandalism Join a WikiProject • Translation Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

A handy collection of useful links.

Canonical IPCC citations.

The canonical forms for citing the IPCC documents are at:

• SAR.
• TAR.
• AR4.
• AR5.

Ask if you have questions or need assistance.

---

Asking your thoughts on the verifiability of a vacuum of sources

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

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

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

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

A barnstar for you!

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

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

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

A barnstar for you!

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

Stellar body in the hayloft

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wrong wording

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

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

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

Template:M

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tired mountain syndrome FYI

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

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

Wikipedia-integrated academic journal

Hi,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Actions by User:Ckruschke may be in breach of WP:OWN

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks

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

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

Ways to improve Ali Mirdrekvandi

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

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

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

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

Tidal aspects

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

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