Jump to content

User talk:J. Johnson

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Hlektron77 (talk | contribs) at 07:29, 28 June 2016. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Getting started
Getting help
Policies and guidelines
The community
Writing articles
Miscellaneous

A handy collection of useful links.

Canonical IPCC citations.

The canonical forms for citing the IPCC documents are at:

Ask if you have questions or need assistance.

Question

Hello. I have just read through the discussion at the CS1 talk page and I must say I've become very confused. If I were to cite sources such as Amazon.com or Official Charts Company for example which are websites that should not be in italics, would I be correct in placing them in the publisher parameter instead of the website to omit the italics? Or is this wrong? Or is there another way to go about this! I was recently told while reviewing Talk:Photograph (Ed Sheeran song)/GA1 that replacing "website" with "publisher" to omit italics contaminates metadata. I'm so confused. Please could you clarify. Thanks. CoolMarc 04:41, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I sympathize with your confusion, will try to clarify. What you were told at the GA discussion is that markup characters – such as the doubled single-quotes we use to force italicization – contaminate the metadata. As to the use of the |website= parameter in citations: that parameter is (at least currently!) an alias for 'work='. Where the nature of a website and its contents are such that it is a "work" (i.e., a collection of items by different authors published together, such as an encyclopedia, or a newspaper, and generally involving some kind of editorial oversight), then, by standard bibliographic practice, the title of the work should be italicized. Which |website= does. The problem is that many editors interpret "website" as suitable for the names of the websites, even where they are not "works". This is generally the case with blogs or such where the individual contributions are not presented as an integrated "work". (A significant indicator is that they lack editors and editorial oversight.) In such cases the "website" is usually only a publisher, the name of which is not italicized, and for which |publisher= is appropriate. Does that help? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:49, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes! That helps so much. Thank you. CoolMarc 04:49, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Please excuse me for butting in. A link to this discussion was provided in the GAN review page. First, thanks J. Johnson for clarifying that I was referring to the mark ups being the contaminant. Speaking of which, will it not "contaminate" the metadata if I were to put MTV News under publisher?
For someone like me who knows little about the difference between "work" and "publisher"" (but thanks for the clarifications made above), I would put MTV News under work and Viacom under publisher (which is the parent company). Correct me if I'm wrong. --Efe (talk) 15:11, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. "Contamination" usually refers to the presence of characters not appropriate for the context, such as formatting codes where a straight data value is expected. On the other hand, where a datum that is valid in itself is put into the wrong parameter, that is simply an error. E.g., use of either |author= or |title= is the "metadata" that informs us whether "Tom Jones" is the name of an author or title of a famous book. Whether a given website is more properly a publisher or a work depends on its content and character. The content of MTV News lacks the unity characteristic of a "work", and its description as the news division of MTV and its history as an entity seems more like a publisher. Viacom would be the owner, and generally not included in a citation. As rough rule of thumb you might consider this: if your sensibility is that the name should not be italicized, it's probably not a "work", so don't put it into |website=. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk)

Of all the J. Johnsons in all the world

I realise there are tens of thousands (at least) of people with the first initial and surname J. Johnson, but I have to ask: were you perhaps a member of a band called Skillet in the 1990s? —GrammarFascist contribstalk 11:25, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, no. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:05, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Link to section heading

You added a link at Wikipedia talk:Citing sources#Discussion about generalizing |editor= to support other roles to the talk page section Help talk:Citation Style 1/Archive 9#contribution= rather than others=. I'm curious: when you follow that link (to the "Help talk:" page), does it show you the right section on the target page? Because it doesn't "work" for User:Aymatth2 or I (that's why Aymatth2 didn't link directly to that section). It starts at the right section, but then a collapsible table above that section gets collapsed, and I end up looking at discussion several screens lower on the page. (OTOH, if I then just click on the URL in my "location bar" and hit [Enter], it goes to the right point.) Apparently it's a browser issue. What do you see and which browser are you using? (See User talk:Aymatth2#Can't make the section link work properly for additional context.) - dcljr (talk) 06:47, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see the same behavior: I click on the link to that section, page initially displays with the section header at the top of the browser window, then a moment later the browser reformats and it displays text several screens lower. This isn't entirely new behavior, as I have seen it for some while. I am using Iceweasel 24.4.0 (variant of Firefox), and the Vector skin.
I don't know if there is any connection, but I also see a somewhat similar problem with highlighting in the edit window: when addition or deletion of text causes a wrapped line to be adjusted the highlighting doesn't always stay in synch with the text being highlighted. My initial suspicion for both of these problems is that Javascript miscounts something. ~ 22:50, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
I seem to recall encountering something like that (the highlighting issue—I also use that option) a few weeks ago, maybe, but I don't think it was with my browser at home (FF 31.3.0 for Linux, and Vector skin); I'm pretty sure it was when I was editing at work using either IE or Google Chrome. I chalked it up to the specific browser I was using and didn't stick around to investigate. It hasn't happened again since, AFAIR. Anyway, thanks for the reply. I guess we'll see if these things get fixed eventually… - dcljr (talk) 02:07, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, a little annoying, but not enough to put it very high on my to-do list. Let me know if you find anything. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:43, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

General merits and applicability of bundling

Yes, one editor is very interested in "who did what" more than the general merits and applicability of bundling. The same editor that called all of your comments useless. The same editor that is now saying that Wikipedia is not a publication because the editor seems to need me to be wrong. The "two of you" suggests that my actions somehow caused all those actions. Precipitated, sure. Caused? Abel (talk) 07:16, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Abel: Coming in as someone not previously involved with either of you, having no proclivities for either of you, and seeing both of you as necessary for a discussion I would like to have, I am concerned about the bickering between you two. (And on multiple articles.) I think both of you need an attitude readjustment, but here I would to help you with yours.
As to assigning any causation, or even precipitation, of this bickering (and that is what those "actions" are), that reeks of "he started it". It is NOT useful. It appears to me that you have contributed greatly to the situation, and some of your comments and views are dubious. E.g., you say that this other editor "called all of your[my]comments useless." Funny thing, I don't recall that. Even if you provided a diff of him saying that, so what? I don't take it seriously. And unless he insists on it, I am willing to let it pass. Another instance: where you say "[t]he same editor that is now saying that Wikipedia is not a publication ...", well, it does not appear that he actually said that. It's actually what you said (here). And where you continue with: "... because[emphasis added]the editor seems to need me to be wrong", you are attributing motivation (as if you can read his mind), and skirting a violation of AGF. I very much doubt that he, or anyone, needs you to be wrong. I think it would help (in several discussions) if you can get past this kind of thinking. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:37, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, so this is why my ears have been burning lately… [grin] - dcljr (talk) 07:35, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OBTW, not "multiple articles": just one article and one project page. - dcljr (talk) 07:40, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ORCIDs in citations

Apologies for overlooking your comments on my talk page; yes I think we should start using ORCID iDs in citations. There's an icon; see https://orcid.org/trademark-and-id-display-guidelines Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:31, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Let's continue this at your page, you being more closely identified with this stuff. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:04, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

I put in the fixes to Alhazen using your suggestion. When the cases got complicated, I used the shorter harv to get the link to work, with handcrafted Volume, paragraph page numbers, and footnote page numbers to handle those cases. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 10:48, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to be of assistance. You should probably use harv in the simple cases (that's what it's for). I'll swing by later to see how you are doing. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:19, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Re: William F. Buckley Quote

My mistake, I guess it's commonly known that WFB did say Saul Alinsky was close to an organizational genius. NapoleonX (talk) 00:20, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@NapoleonX: It sort of sounds like you are apologizing for your edit here removing the Buckley quote, which I reverted. In your edit summary you said that the cited source (Playboy) "couldn't be the source of a WFB quote". That is rather nonsensical. Buckley certainly did interviews with Playboy, so I don't see how such a quote "couldn't be". If you doubt the accuracy of the quote the proper course is verify it with the source. If there is some problem with the source, or the citation, then there are tags to be used to bring to the problem to the attention of other editors. As to "commonly known": there is the view that WP:You don't need to cite that the sky is blue. but 1) see also WP:NOTBLUE, and 2) quotations must always be cited (see WP:V).

Why have I been singled out??? (Myth of the Flat Earth talk page)

I don't understand why my post was flagged for "soapboxing". There are many other comments on this page that discuss (rather fervently in some cases) the general topic rather than the article.Hellbound Hound 2 (talk) 04:14, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments at Talk:Myth_of_the_flat_Earth#Comment are entirely arguments on how people lacking advanced techonology could have known that the Earth is not flat. But that article is not whether they did know (or should have known) that, as we accept that they did know. The article is about a recent myth that medieval did not know this. Your arguments are irrelevant to the topic, and do not address any potential issues with the article. Note that the bulk of the current discussions are mainly about possible problems in the title of the article, not on the general topic. Note also that your comments were also stale, having gotten no response in three weeks, which also indicates a lack of relevance to the article. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:33, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DRIBBLESOFBLUE listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect DRIBBLESOFBLUE. Since you had some involvement with the DRIBBLESOFBLUE redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. -- Tavix (talk) 02:19, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I hadn't heard about this. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk)

Your commercial code flags graphic

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Commercial_Code_flags.png

Hey there. I don't have access to your cited reference but I'm pretty sure that the yellow flag stood for 'Q' and not 'O'. Assuming you agree, would you pls correct and re-upload the image? Thanks, Mark. 106.69.51.23 (talk) 03:07, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are right. I'll put rebuilding that image that on my to-do list, but it may be a while before I can get to it. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:42, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Cool. Thx. 106.69.51.23 (talk) 17:14, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Neutral point of view noticeboard discussion

Hello, J. Johnson. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Noticeboard#Earthquake_prediction_-_Van_method -- Hlektron77 07:29, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:J._Johnson&oldid=727327697"