Jump to content

User talk:J. Johnson/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5

Citation wars!

Hi, I don't want to sidetrack the discussion at Template talk:Citation, but your point about the CMOS having two styles was an interesting one. I don't really dabble with the humanities, but as their sources tend to be essays and books rather than short articles in journals and collections, I can see why a different format might be appropriate. My question was whether, to your knowledge, the existing templates seem to be suitable for both Style A and Style B (I can't really comment from experience outwith the sciences), and which category the current format better matches?

Cheers

Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 02:15, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

By "suitable" I reckon you mean something like "could be used to produce a format in the manner of" a certain style. I am hardly expert in bibliographic/citation styles generally, or in Wikipedia specifically, so I am quite reluctant to make an assessment such as you ask. But more to the point, the "A" and "B" distinctions are not so much particular styles as two families of stylistic preferences, each family having many members that vary in particular ways at particular points. So it is reasonable to ask: by "suitable" do mean that the existing templates can be used to produce output sufficiently "A-like" or "B-like" that an editor would find warm and fuzzy? Or output that is correct for some specific style?
As to what the various templates should do, I think there are several broad possibilities.
  1. Wikipedia could adopt a particular style (which is to say, a particular set of stylistic preferences), and you can get any color you want as long as it's black. (Consensus would be needed, which seems doubtful.)
  2. The templates could be set up for specific styles (APA, etc.) (For which I think a lot could be said, but it would be a lot of work.)
  3. The templates could offer options on some of the key points where preferences differ. (E.g., which separator to use.)
I am inclined to the last, which seems to be existing situation. Not that I think there should be total flexibility in all matters (because I think there should some degree of standarization), but until there has been much more experience in what works (and development of consensus) there should be flexibility in various points where there are strong differences of preference. After some years it will be interesting to see if there is a trend towards Style A or Style B. But I think it should a matter of a bottom-up driven result than a top-down driven goal. J. Johnson (talk)

Definition of 'switchback'?

I am wondering if it would be suitable to provide an improved definiton of 'switchback' (a.k.a. "hairpin turns") on Wikipedia and/or Wiktionary. Comments? J. Johnson (talk) 22:52, 7 June 2009 (UTC)


About the maritime flags

Read your suggestions, I agree that combining those pages would be a good idea. I don't have much to help at the moment, but thanks for asking. Maybe you could put the Japanese Z-flag use somewhere with an asterisk or something, since it is was an interesting use of the signal in past wars. Wilytilt (talk) 06:28, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

So you won't take it amiss if (and whenever) I make some rearrangements? It is an interesting little fact, but it's the kind of trivia that often isn't significant enough for inclusion. I'll watch for an opportunity to re-use it. (Assuming I can find time to do anything at all!) - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:12, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
Not a problem - maybe putting it in a body paragraph or foot-note would be good. This is because there are direct links to the maritime flags page from some of the Japanese naval battle pages that cite the Z-flag. I trust your judgment, thanks for asking. Wilytilt (talk) 01:22, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Dear J. Johnson,

It may be of some assistance in your excellent Maritime Signals article(s) to note that I am on the trail of a decidedly non-arbitrary origin for at least one signal-phrase. BQD ceased to be used after shipboard radio became common; it meant "report me well", a request that another ship bound for the signaler's home port assure the crewmembers' families that they were okay. Though I cannot yet prove it, the choice of letters seems to have been derived from the Latin phrase "Bene Quequo Declarare", meaning roughly the same thing. I have found nothing to confirm such origins of other signals, but it would make sen sense if it were so; Latin was in effect the lingua franca of the west until the 18th century, and officers' education routinely included Latin and Greek.

20:22, 22 June 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.8.178.172 (talk)

Interesting. However, there are some indications here that you are not familiar with Wikipeida processes and requirements. For instance, it is not sufficient that you can prove anything; content must be based on what other sources have claimed. Also, keep in mind that there were multiple volumes of signal codes, and it is a good question why BQD should get special attention. If you wish to make any contributions I would strongly recommend recommend registering. Ask if you have any questions. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:52, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Global warming controversy

Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia! In case you are not already aware, an article to which you have recently contributed, Global warming controversy, is on article probation. A detailed description of the terms of article probation may be found at Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation. Also note that the terms of some article probations extend to related articles and their associated talk pages.

The above is a templated message. Please accept it as a routine friendly notice, not as a claim that there is any problem with your edits. Thank you. -- TS 00:10, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Need assistance archiving.

{{helpme}} I need assistance archiving the discussion at Talk:Olympic-Wallowa Lineament. I attempted to use the "move" procedure described at WP:AATP, but have not gotten the result expected. I would appreciate someone showing me how, before I dig myself in deeper. J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:33, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Done, see Help:Archiving a talk page.  fetchcomms☛ 21:37, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
I can a) set it to auto-archive, and then b) show you how I did it, if you like? Either let me know here if that's OK, or talk to me, with this link  Chzz  ►  21:42, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
I decided to boldly do it; the voodoo is here - the page will now automatically archive itself. Nothing else needed; the bot will sort things out. Hope this is helpful; if you want to know more, please ask. Cheers,  Chzz  ►  21:56, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I think I will pass on the auto archiving, but I appreciate seeing how it works.

I am still unclear as to how the archiving is done (manually). Per the help page (Help:Archiving a talk page, which is not clear on that) I had added the {{tl:talkarchive}} lines at top and bottom, then saved, but nothing happened. From the page history it appears that you (fetchcomms) replaced the top line with {{tl:talkheader}}, and simultaneously all the text to be archived went away. But 1) 'talkheader' is just the standard template, nothing to do with archiving (I think; right?), and 2) did the text "go away" a) because you did that manually, or b) as an automatic result of the archiving? - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:02, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

You create a subpage of the talk page, like Talk:PAGE NAME/Archive 1, manually copy-paste all the old stuff you want to archive into that subpage, and put an archive header on it. Then you delete the copied posts from the current talk page and put an archive box so people can get a link to the archive. {{talkheader}} is just the regular talk header. You need to put the archive header on the manually created subpage.  fetchcomms☛ 22:11, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Olympic-Wallowa Lineament

(Extended comments.)

Nice to see this. The Basin and Range Province has North-South faults, there are some NW-SE alineaments (Olympic-Wallowa Lineament), and some NE-SW alineaments (tectonic plate motion, western edge of Laurentia). About the climate change controversy, you better read Peter Langdon Ward (2009). --Chris.urs-o (talk) 10:29, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

You liked it? Great. Towards the end it's still a bit rocky (hmmm, a pun?), but I hope to straighten that out – eventually. The whole Kula plate interaction is so unsettled I'm hard up to assess it.
Thanks for the tip about Peter Langdon Ward. I already have an old paper of his, but I thought it was the highly eclectic Peter Ward at the U. of Washington. Good to know. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:30, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I think Peter L. Ward and Gerta Keller r quite a bit right. Extinction events, sulfur dioxide emissions, climate change, and flood basalts correlate.

This would be a different topic, but it needs a comment: be careful not to get ahead of the science! There are still a few hold-outs against the Chicxulub theory, but the science for it, and against the alternatives, is overwhelmingly strong. Just last month Science had an article which pretty much nails it (5 March 2010 327: 1214-1218). The liklihood of finding something that totally upsets this theory is vanishingly small, and persistence in searching is becoming more of an indicator of obstinate, quixotic bad judgment.
Ok, but there are more basalt floods than Chicxulub craters ;)
Which means what? The half-dozen or so major basalt floods have occurred over millions of years, which is a rather broad target for correlating with climate change. And where we do have a record of distinguishable climatic change – something like the last 200,000 years? – there is no correlation. Possibly the Deccan Traps contributed in some minor way to the KT extinction, but it is now undeniable that there was a Really Bad Day for Dinosaurs. And that event is quite sufficient in itself to have caused the KT extinction. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:40, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
It was a bad day, it was a bad period of time too. Look at the figure, I like it. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 05:53, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I have an idea about this lineament, maybe as working hypothesis. Hope u r curious enough, and I hope I'm not wasting ur time ;) It seems u can see more than one NW-SE feature on the Miscellaneous Investigations Series Map I-2206 1991, Landforms of the Conterminous United States - A Digital Shaded-Relief Portrayal. Overview:

The North American craton heads Southwest, heading around 242°.

East of the edge of the North American craton, Basin and Range Province.

East of Oregon-Idaho graben, Steens Mountain fault scarp, Walker Lane and trough, Owens Valley and graben, Death valley, Imperial rift valley, and Gulf of California.

East of the San Andreas Fault

  • The rate of slippage averages approximately 33–37 mm/year across California.
  • (Wallace, Robert E. "Present-Day Crustal Movements and the Mechanics of Cyclic Deformation". The San Andreas Fault System, California. Retrieved 2007-10-26.)

--Chris.urs-o (talk) 13:25, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

What do u think about? Crap? --Chris.urs-o (talk) 02:42, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't call it crap. (As an instructor once said: "at least you're thinking." :-) And it's generally good to keep me on my toes, and you're catching me, and the article, right at the weakest point: basement tectonics. (I just hope you are as serious about the questions as I am.) But what can this hypothesis do for us?
The NA craton seems to be maintaining as an integral whole. I.e., I doubt that the east coast is moving differently than – well, have to be very careful here – the western edge of the craton, which is roughly the Cordillera. (The accreted terranes on the west coast are moving.) The continental pattern of ancient NW and NE striking zones of suturing and fracturing (there are some nice images, but I don't have any, yet, suitable for Wikipedia), occasionally expressed in rough lineaments, is intriguing. But deceptively deep, and simple answers tend to fail – i.e., are unsatisfactory in various regards – because they are, well, superficial. Like, there are age discrepancies. (Which can be, to some extent, reconciled as subsequent reworking of older features; see O'Neil, 2007, on the Great Divide Megashear.) Some of these features seem to have originated at the closing of the Atlantic, when Pangaea formed. Others seem to date even further back, to the breakup of Rodinia, all of which is hundreds of millions of years old. How does this connect with the Brothers Fault Zone, etc., which are expressed in much younger Cenozoic rock? One might invoke ancient bedrock, but then that has to be reconciled with moving terranes and the Oregon roation, etc. So while your idea is probably starting from the right place ("it's all due to plate motions!"), it doesn't really grapple with the details of a complex situation. But keep hacking away! - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:34, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

By the way, there is a faulting on the East Coast (Saint Lawrence River), New Madrid Seismic Zone. The velocity vectors are not the same on the East Coast and on the West Coast and on San Francisco: Global Positioning System (GPS) Time Series --Chris.urs-o (talk) 00:38, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

The San Andreas fault goes out to sea at Cape Mendocino, and north of there is a subduction zone. There is still a vector relative to the NA craton, which happens to be (coincidentally?) normal to the OWL, and results in a lot of shortening across western Washington. I don't know how that could contribute to the OW, or the BFZ, unless you consider these as faults extending from the interior of the craton. For which there is no evidence. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:17, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, I do know that I do not know. I change the past text, I hope that I improved it. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 13:25, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I had trouble finding just what you changed – a misplaced comma? You have a good eye. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:13, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

See the figure or Mechanisms of Basin and Range Faulting, the recent rocks on the top of the range gets eroded, so u do not have the same rocks on both side of the fault. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 07:32, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Thx for discussing the geology with me ;) I think that I got a better overview now. The faulting of the North American craton is resulting too of the slight different directions of the motion vectors on the USA/ Canada border from East to West. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 07:51, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
You may be too hung up on the instantaneous vectors. At the "bottom" (literally and metaphorically), yes, plate motions drive everything. But when two tectonic slabs crash together (which might be head-on, but usually with some obliquiness) there are various possibilities: shearing and strike-slip faulting, thrust faulting (one slab pushed up on the other), folding. suturing. Or thinning, if the slabs are diverging. And (most important!!) all this gets played out over billions of years, and the vectors keep changing. Which are not at all well known. (E.g., what caused the left-lateral the truncation of the WISZ 90 Ma? How is that to be accounted for?) The cratons reflect complex histories, which is not to be oversimplified. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:09, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, I'm more interested at what did happen the last 17 Ma, and what will happen in my lifetime ;) (San Andreas Fault, Yellowstone Caldera, New Madrid Seismic Zone, Rio Grande rift, Socorro Caldera). During the Eocene the Farallon Plate subduction-associated compressive forces of the Laramide orogeny ended, plate interactions changed from orthogonal compression to oblique strike-slip; the WISZ 90 Ma event might be linked to that. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 19:17, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Something was happening with the Farallon/Kula plates during the Eocene, but just what, and the timing, seems as yet unsettled. As to the left-lateral WISZ truncation 90 Ma, the only suggestion I have seen is that a "super-terrane" docked – and then changed direction (rebounded??) to the northwest. Which doesn't make sense. But I haven't seen that anyone else has any other ideas on this. Part of my motivation for doing this article is to see if I can spur any ideas. But I rather doubt that serious geologists spend much time looking at Wikipedia. Sigh. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:20, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
Do you remember the Hawaiian – Emperor seamount chain bend? "Approximately 40–50 Ma, it is thought to have suddenly changed direction," Could this be interesting, as well? "A Reappraisal of Stress Field and Convective Roll Models for the Origin and Distribution of Cretaceous to Recent Intraplate Volcanism in the Pacific Basin", Author: Alan Smith, DOI: 10.2747/0020-6814.45.4.287, Journal: International Geology Review, Volume 45, Issue 4 April 2003 , pages 287 - 302.
  • Slice 28: Lower Tejas II – Lutetian – Bartonian – 49-37 Ma
  • Slice 27: Lower Tejas I – Thanetian – Ypresian – 58-49 Ma
  • Slice 26: Upper Zuni IV – middle Campanian – Selandian (Late Cretaceous – earliest Paleogene) – 81-58 Ma
  • Slice 25: Upper Zuni III – late Cenomanian – early Campanian (Late Cretaceous) – 94-81 Ma
  • Slice 24: Upper Zuni II – late Aptian – middle Cenomanian (Early Cretaceous – earliest Late Cretaceous) – 117-94 Ma --Chris.urs-o (talk) 04:44, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
There are thousands of possibly interesting articles, and even in my more narrowly constrained regional area of interest there are several hundred interesting articles, of which I downloaded another couple of dozen the other day, which I have not yet even cataloged, let alone read and studied. To get anywhere with this stuff you have narrowly focus, and then exercise a fine sense of judgment of what actually to read. The problem is that there is too much interesting stuff. So, sorry, I'm not familiar with, and can't comment on, the article you mentioned – it is outside of such knowledge as I have. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:40, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
Ok,Ok,Ok, sorry. I did not read it too and it does not have a free abstract. It is a Wiki ref and I was trying to understand what happened at the Hawaiian – Emperor seamount chain bend. Just showed u 'coz u wanted to know what happened at 90 Ma. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 04:46, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
No problem! Anyway, what happened at the Hawaiian – Emperor seamount chain bend was: the Pacific Plate changed directions. As to why, that was long suspected to be the collision of the Indian sub-continent with Asia, but there seemed to be a problem with the dates: the latter was around 50 Ma, and the bend seemed to date to 42 or 44 Ma. So people started coming up with alternative theories. But Sharp and Clague (see article) showed that the dating had been a little bit off. Which is typical science: theories, or even supposed "facts", conflict, so how can they be reconciled? It often takes deep and subtle study, and a lot of adjusting of interpretations. Now only if someone would sort out that 90 Ma event for me! - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk)
Just found it. The map on the last page shows what happened 90 Ma (Plate velocities in hotspot reference frame: electronic supplement (PDF). p. 111. Retrieved 2010-04-23. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |authors= ignored (help)) --Chris.urs-o (talk) 18:25, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

ZP5

A constant stream of stuff to deal with on List of scientists. I gave up some time ago. What you need is a nice break. Maybe a sabbatical somewhere (maybe not the US after dissing the political system :)). Polargeo (talk) 21:24, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, maybe. But, hey, it is not "dissing the political system" here to call it out. Any Congress person can get anything "published", there are no standards whatsoever. And it includes a lot of junk. Meanwhile I take my turn hammering. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:50, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Yeah I sort of figured that about congress after several wikipedia battles. I was actually pleased that senior Scottish and UK political figures refused to go to the Foreign Relations committee hearing on BP involvement with Libya. Not because I don't think they should answer questions but because those things can be more like show trials where senators take turns trying to score points so they can get re-elected. Polargeo (talk) 06:26, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
It's said that the best part of democracy is that everyone gets to vote. And the worse part is — everyone gets to vote. Even the idiots. And my impression is that those who have power (*wealth*) don't really mind if everyone gets to vote. As long as we all act like idiots. Even a serious, intelligent, principled, civic-minded politician, facing a sea of idiots, needs to be a clown. I suspect the only way to fix that is to raise the standards of the electorate, one idiot at a time. Well, you can see for yourself how well that is working. Sigh.
Coffee break's over, time for me to leap back into the pool! - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:34, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

New sanction for Climate Change articles

I was alerted to this edit of yours. While I thank you for explaining yourself on the talk page, I should alert you to WP:GS/CC/RE#Article tags. Best, NW (Talk) 22:13, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh. I wasn't aware of that. Thanks for letting me know. J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:19, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

GSA Bulletin

So which ones are u looking for ? --Chris.urs-o (talk) 06:01, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
Most of the GSA Bull. items I copy from the local university library. I seem to recall there is an article from Geosphere that is not available there, but I don't recall which one jus off-hand. But like I said earlier, I was wondering to what extent you can follow the literature. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:24, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
The Swiss library is quite complete. The Bulletin of Vulcanology is not :( If u really need this Geosphere one, give me the reference and I'll try to get it for u. I'm 40 km from the library, so sometimes I'm lazy ;) I prefer to use the PDFs available on internet. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 16:44, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

ZP5

ZP5 is incoherent. There is a fair chance that "he" is actually an Eliza-bot. However, the current arbcomm case will close in a few days, and then he (like me, alas) won't be able to contribute. So I think your best plan is just to wait a few more days William M. Connolley (talk) 21:13, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

My last chance to get him in a half-nelson and make him confess to having a secret plan to destroy the earth. You think I should be running for a life-boat instead? - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:28, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
If you manage to get any sense out of him, I shall congratulate you heartily. But I don't expect to need to. I think you have your metaphors wrong though: you are the only person for miles around not holed below the waterline by the sharks. All you need to do is sit quietly as everyone else sinks William M. Connolley (talk) 21:41, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm not trying to get sense out of him, I'm trying to clearly demonstrate that he lacks sense. Though I wouldn't mind if the horse sings. So how long before the sharks come after me? - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:54, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
I'll give 117 cents for a dollar if you can get WMC to realize the error of his ways in any sensible way. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 01:42, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
I sometimes wonder about some of William's ways, even to the point of finding some of them regrettable. But 1) I think he is (in the main) sensible, and 2) I don't feel I have sufficient stature to presume to lecture to him. (If he were to ask me for personal advice — well, we don't know each other well enough for that.) On the other hand, you (ZP5) have some pretty serious flaws in your approach to some of our shared interests. And, by the way, please note that when I tangle with you I am not doing it for any vicarious thrill of beating up on you. There are certain respects (trust me on this!) where you do come across as, well, "incoherent" is perhaps a bit strong, but there is some flavor of that. Like that stuff about IRS regulation — most people find it just silly. Even though William chides me about it, I do leave open the possibility that you might come to understand that.
BTW, what is the significance of "ZP5"? I suspect a signal flag code, but don't know which one. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 18:45, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback. Would you like my critique on you? ZuluPapa5 is a coded message to my ident; however, I prefer to keep the keys now. I tend to consider myself incomplete before incoherent. Incoherence is WMC's interpretation because of inpatients. The IRS stuff was a silly exploration into non-profit ownership and the widespread illusion that a non-profit does not have owners. Ask any foreign nation who owns U.S.A. non-profits. BTW, I admit to having a secret plan to destroy the earth; however, I can't remember it now ... am I incomplete or incoherent. It had something to do with NIMBY as applied to those who remain ignorant of their faults. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 01:22, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
Yes, that IRS stuff was silly. To the point of inanity, which rather discredits you in any serious discussion. This "widespread illusion that a non-profit does not have owners" is of the same sort (I suspect you've been hanging out with a bad crowd), and I am glad you had enough sense to not jump on that horse. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 18:44, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

File:Newberry-Yellowstone tracks.png

Beautiful graphic File:Newberry-Yellowstone tracks.png ;) --Chris.urs-o (talk) 15:49, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Nah, not really. Adequate to the task, but stark utilitarian. Now what comes closer to beauty is File:Puget_Sound_faults.png. Though as I told my collaborator on that one: he made a really nice underlay, and I slashed it with ugly red lines. Sigh. That's what you get when an engineer attempts art. :-) — J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:27, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Ok, the red lines are thick. I miss the quote: "Several alternate models have been proposed including shearing of a mantle plume, subduction counterflow, gravitational flow along the base of the lithosphere, and extension of the Basin and Range. Subduction counterflow is a back current generated in the lithosphere by a subducting plate. Gravitational flow along the base of the lithosphere is like reverse water flow on the surface, in which the asthenosphere flows up along mountain roots." As the accretionary belt is thinner than the Laurentia craton (File:North america craton nps.gif). --Chris.urs-o (talk) 01:07, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
Deliberately thick, as that they are the whole point of that illustration.
I left out the alternate models bit because it is too much to cover in one sentence and such a short article, and because it really is more properly addressed in the YSH article, - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 18:32, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
BTW, thanks for fixing up the citations. I really don't like the generic "author" tag, but what the hell, it works now. I may try poking around, see what I can find. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:03, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
Ok, I like the idea that the magma cascades up because of its bouancy. Yw, the cite templates on commons seems to need an update to meet the cite templates on english wikipedia. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 06:09, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Removing PMID when DOI present

In Seattle Fault you did that — I don't have a good feel for how useful PMIDs are in the field, but PMIDs give a reliable second source for the abstract and whatever citation network PubMed tracks. Broken DOIs, while uncommon, happen too. I'd be interested in your comments. RDBrown (talk) 23:00, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Yes. In general I don't object to multiple finding aids, but I don't feel the PMIDs are that useful here. They are intended for the medical field, and I suspect that non-medical articles are sucked in only because they simply include everything in Science. I wouldn't object to a PMID where a DOI is not available (I don't think I eliminated any such, but admit I wasn't looking too carefully). I add urls when I can find a copy of an article outside of a paywall, but as PMIDs and DOIs both are just pointers to the publisher, I am inclined to to use just one. In regard to a broken DOI, I would say that the proper response is to fix it. (If it's broken on the other end, then there is effectively no DOI, and a PMID is proper and useful.) Your thoughts? - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:15, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
DOI in Science articles doesn't give an abstract. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 06:07, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
What? I click on the doi, and I get a page with the abstract. You want to double check that? - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:23, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
I think the DOIBot will just put it back anyway. The PMID links to a copy of the abstract at the NIH site, hence second source, which can be an advantage for some journals. The removed PMID 17742525 17742525 gives 126 related citations at PubMed, 26 Free Full Text, not all from Science, so it could be useful... if they're sufficiently relevant — which is as you say, much more likely for the BioMed fields. RDBrown (talk) 13:25, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
Well, I am disinclined to fight with some robot, so perhaps all this is moot. I am not strongly opposed to having PMID links, I just think they are rather unnecessary ostentation that does not add to the article. I don't know how the 126 (?) Pubmed citations compare with the 30+ citations Science provides (from GeoRef, I believe), but I doubt if that is any use or even significance for the bulk of Wikipedia readers. People that really want to chase down all those citations likely know how to use GeoRef or Google Scholar.
Correction: I checked Pubmed's citations for Atwater's article (PMID 17742525 #17742525), and frankly, I am sufficiently disimpressed to take a stand against PMIDs. Of the 112 citations returned, the majority appear to be not even remotely related to geology. Of the 22 "free full text" articles — which are not of the referenced article, but of the citing articles — only four appear to be geology related. I checked one of the others for any reference to "Atwater", and there were none. At which point I conclude that Pubmed's notion of a citing article is unreliable if not outright fantasy, and their numbers meaningless. My position now is that PMIDs are unreliable, creating a facade of scholarly usefulness that does not actually exist, and not only fail to provide any marginal improvement over existing resources, but should be dropped. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:23, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
Not good, they seem to be better for the BioMed stuff — but I'm a programmer, and you'd expect better behavior in their domain, where I expect more effort has been put into the cataloging. Perhaps too showing their long history, where Information Retrieval has moved on. Citation template enhancements that allowed fields like PMID to be populated (for cross checking) but not displayed in domains where they aren't useful would be good, if that is possible. Unfortunately DOIs rely on the publisher's sites behaving and policies (some DOIs are stupidly long). I think the DOIBot's programmatic access to CrossRef requires affiliate credentials, where PubMed is open. RDBrown (talk) 21:13, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
Using CrossRef directly requires affiliation, but most journals extract and present the cross-references with the abstract, so no affiliation is required in regard of a particular article. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:32, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Censorship and totalitarianism

(Extended comments.)

As I said at the bureaucrats' noticeboard, I'm coming here to follow up a few things as I think some of what was said there was misunderstood. I was taken aback in particular when the words 'censorship' and 'totalitarianism' began to be thrown around in that discussion and on some user talk pages. It should be clear to anyone who edits Wikipedia that it is a remarkably open system, and very resistant to such things. It is only when people run up against the final stages of dispute resolution, when binding and enforceable remedies start to be handed down, that they start to realise that there are limits. I'm not saying that ArbCom always gets it right, but there does have to be a tacit acceptance to work within the system. If you disagree with a topic ban, to contest the topic ban formally, rather than engage in testing the limits, to seek clarification when uncertain, rather than trying something and seeing what will happen. To follow up some more, when I said "best held elsewhere" I was referring to those not blocked. When someone is blocked, their options do diminish, and that is not unintentional. It is not a question of censorship, but of maintaining order. If you disagree, you and others are free to start discussions with the wider community at WT:BAN and WT:USER and WT:BLOCK and WT:RFA and several other places, to try and work out whether those editors serving a block or ban should still have a voice in ongoing community activities and discussions, and how it would work in practice. You should also ask your questions of candidates in the forthcoming ArbCom elections (actually, nominations have already opened). That would, as i said, be better than discussing matters on user talk pages or at the bureaucrats noticeboard. Carcharoth (talk) 01:49, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I have not "formally" protested (contested?) this particular topic ban, as I think others can do that better. What I raised was a disturbing implication, which is nothing less than — censorship. Now it should be noted that I do allow for some restrictions — "censorship" — in regards of pornography, copyright violations, etc. These are definite, previously identified subjects (however blurry they may be around the edges), which can be cast as particular exceptions to general "free speech". And it should also be noted (as I stated on the noticeboard) that I am not coming from any notion of individual rights or such; my concern is whether Wikipedia is self-limiting in respect of what can be discussed. This especially concerns me when discussion (or editors) is restricted on the claim of "maintaining order" — which is precisely what you have claimed (above, and previously). And just what totalitarian regimes claim.
Your initial statement that was certain discussions could not be held on the talk pages, were "best held elsewhere". Which turns out to be nowhere on Wikipedia. And now you explicitly deny participation to — blocked editors? I thought we were discussing topic-banned editors, but perhaps this is immaterial, seeing that WMC was blocked for saying nothing. At any rate, what I see is an editor being banned/blocked for some very petty, arbitrary reasons. This has all the earmarks of invidious censorship, and I have yet to see what is misunderstood. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 01:02, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
The misunderstanding is in thinking that my "best held elsewhere" comment referred to blocked editors. It did not. I was saying that all editors have an obligation to think about where they post and to not dilute discussion across multiple venues. In other words (and I was probably unclear initially), I wasn't saying that people should be marched to the right place to make their comments, but they should be politely reminded that more people will see what they have to say (and something may actually get done) if they go to the right place. An analogy would be people around a water cooler at work moaning about local taxes (i.e. nothing gets done), compared to people that write a letter to their local councillor/representative, or campaign to get things changed and hold a public meeting about the local taxes (i.e. possibly something will get changed). This should be distinguished from my comments about blocked editors and topic-banned editors, as that is something different altogether. When a blocked editor's block expires, or a topic-banned editor has their topic ban lifted, they can comment anywhere like anyone, but are still under the same obligation to find the right venue to maximise the impact of what they say (otherwise it is just so many people chatting to each other around a water cooler). So do you see what I mean now? It's not censorship, but frustration that people chat to each other on the wrong pages and are often remarkably reluctant to ask the wider community what they think (possibly because they know the wider community might not agree with them). Finally, as I've said before, my views on all this are clearly not your views, so I will say again, get out there and present your views and see if anyone agrees with you. This is, after all (to use my analogy), just a water cooler discussion, and only two of us at that. Don't take my word as the last word, or even your word as the last word. Take some time to gather your thoughts, and start a wider discussion on the issues. That way, you will find out what the community norms are around here on these issues, and can challenge them if you think the culture around here needs changing. Carcharoth (talk) 01:36, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
You're weaseling. The context of your remark was the charge of RFA canvassing that you made, in regard of a specific comment by specific user on his talk page; the paragraph where you made that comment started: "If you look at the history of the user talk page in question...." (Emphasis added.) If the impression given was not what you meant, then perhaps you should go back and correct your statement.
In your comments above you are putting forth a new view, asserting that "all editors have an obligation to think about where they post and to not dilute discussion across multiple venues." (And where does this come from?) You have amplified this with "more people will see what they have to say" and "obligation to find the right venue to maximize the impact of what they say". I find this quite ironic, as you have also said (and a point you were making) "notices left on user talk pages, even your own user talk page, can act as notification to more people than just the user whose talk page it is." But don't forget that being "watched by many" was deemed an aggravation of offense. So is the offense that WMC — a known disruptive!! — made a remark on his own talk page, knowing that it is "watched by many"? Or is the offense that he should have made a BIGGER impact by going to a more public forum? - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:19, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
WMC should have either waited until the block expired, or appealed and/or negotiated an unblock, and then expressed his opinion at the RFA. Instead, he chose to use his talk page as a venue to address an audience and tell them (in no uncertain terms) his opinion on the RFA. This applies whether or not he was blocked, as addressing an audience is simply not what user talk pages are for (though I admit that many people do use them that way). The difference here is that because he was blocked, his user talk page was the only place available for him to make that comment. I suppose the real question here is what he would have done if he had not been blocked. Would he have made that comment at the RFA (no problem, if a bit lacking in civility) or would he have still made the comment on his talk page? Now do you see what I'm trying to say? Anyone, on any user talk page, whether blocked or not, whether it was their use talk page or not, would be treading a fine line if they tried to send a message to multiple people to say that an RFA should be opposed. Carcharoth (talk) 02:04, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
I can see what you're saying, and though it is somewhat mixed the consistent theme seems to be: editors can be banned and/or blocked for a large range of speech deemed disruptive by some admin, or even none at all. Consider your most recent statement: by it I am "treading a fine line" (and what does that mean — you have your eye on me?) if I comment on an RFA and more than one person is watching. (Or is it only if one opposes an RFA?) I could go on and on, but in brief it comes down to this: on Wikipedia certain comments about Wikipedia, at least if they come from certain editors, are punishable. This is effectively censorship. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:25, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
Which is where we came in: In C's totalitarian world, anything not explicitly permitted is forbidden William M. Connolley (talk) 22:22, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
Not really. I have encouraged J. Johnson to take this up in the places where more people can provide input, and I encourage you (WMC) to do the same. That, I hope you will realise, is the opposite of censorship. If the question is thoughtful and clearly in good-faith, it will be answered. If you (WMC) go to ArbCom and ask for clarification, it will be provided. You might not like the answer, but if you personally are unclear about anything specific to your restrictions, that is precisely what the clarifications page is for (please don't, however, ask individual arbitrators for clarifications, as they don't have the authority to clarify things - ditto for what I've said here and elsewhere, none of which has any formal authority). If you or J. Johnson want clarification from the wider community on how certain policies work, again, there are talk pages where you can ask for such clarifications by starting a discussion. Carcharoth (talk) 03:46, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

WMC should have either waited until the block expired - that is fatuous. The RFA would have been over. This isn't the arbcomm case any more C: you don't get a free pass on factual errors any more William M. Connolley (talk) 22:21, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I realise the RFA would have been over. You can't reasonably say because the block expires after the end of the RFA, that you get a free pass to say what you like on your talk page as a substitute venue. When a user is blocked, their user talk page has a very specific purpose - for appealing the block. Anything above and beyond that risks the user talk page becoming a 'retreat' for the user to carry on as if nothing had happened. The simple rule of thumb should be that if something would have been posted to the user talk page anyway, that would be fine, but if something would have been posted elsewhere (in this case, the RFA), then posting it to the user talk page instead is using the user talk page to circumvent the block. To me, this is obvious, but I suspect that many people see their user talk page as their personal page, where they can do what they like. I've always seen user talk pages as part of the project, shared between a user and the rest of the community (unlike, say, the user pages, which are more directly places for a user to make notes and so forth). Does that help make clearer where I'm coming from here? Carcharoth (talk) 03:46, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
If you realise that the RFA would have been over, then the text I've quoted is indeed fatuous. Are you able to admit that? William M. Connolley (talk) 08:20, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
I don't think C would actually forbid what is not explicitly permitted. But he'll send you to your room nonetheless (for less than none?). I think that's part of Arendt's definition of totalitarianism: arbitrariness. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:20, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
I hope the explanations I've given here and elsewhere lay out my reasoning. You obviously disagree with me, but saying something is arbitrary when I've gone to great lengths to explain my views is misrepresenting the course of the disucssion. Also, you are still focusing on my views, when I've repeatedly suggested that you seek the views of the wider community and see which view (yours or mine) is the more widely held. Until that is done, this is just a difference of opinion, and one that has most probably run its course. I'll check back here for any responses, but will try and disengage now as it seems clear that we are never going to agree on this. Carcharoth (talk) 03:46, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
I don't think C would actually forbid what is not explicitly permitted - I think you're wrong. See his When a user is blocked, their user talk page has a very specific purpose - for appealing the block. And his invention of post-hoc rules of thumb. C is probably a nice enough chap, but the intolerance of dissent is clear enough William M. Connolley (talk) 08:20, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I forgot about that. But I was thinking more generally, as the normal case for good little citizens. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:34, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
Carcharoth: Please understand that I do appreciate your taking time and effort explain your thinking to me. And please understand (which I think you don't) that my interest here is in understanding your views (because you are not just any editor, but one with authority, and because of your specific views) regarding this incident. My interest is not in which of our views might be more popular, but in the basis of your views; not as a mere "difference of opinion", but an opportunity to examine that difference. (Recall that on the noticeboard I allowed my specific question had been answered, even though I find it somewhat appalling.) To that end, your several suggestions that I "seek the views of the wider community" are rather pointless, except to the extent the wider community knows or can convey something about your thinking that you can't.
Curiously, there may be something to that last comment. I believe these rules, and interpretations of rules, that you apply are not post-hoc (as William says). But though they seem "obvious" to you, I do not see them as obvious. Nor official and documented, nor even a "consensual" community norm. I suspect they are largely your internalized views, and, sorry, despite the "great lengths" you have taken to explain them, they do come across as arbitrary. My point here is that you may not even be aware of this. And quite aside from whether or not they are actually arbitrary (or not), in practice your application of them certainly seems arbitrary. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:34, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
The mistake you are making is in thinking that I can answer your question with any finality. It shows a fundamental misunderstanding of how Wikipedia works. You might think individual arbitrators and even the arbitration committee have great "power" or "authority", but individual arbitrators certainly don't have any authority to act unilaterally or make final pronouncements on anything (other than to express their individual opinions, which is what I've been doing), and ArbCom is also much more limited in what it can do than people realise (ArbCom actions are mostly limited to formal votes on matters related to cases before them). Most consensus at Wikipedia is formed by discussion among the editorial community. You said at the noticeboard that I had "answered" your question, and I went to great lengths to tell you that the answer is only my personal opinion, and you shouldn't take it as an authoritative or final answer. You always have the option to seek wider consensus to see if personal views are out-of-step with wider consensus. I can't stop you taking my replies as a final answer, but I can tell you that they are not final answers and that you should be asking others what they think. If you refuse to do that, I can't do much about that. Carcharoth (talk) 04:19, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
C, you running off on an incorrect assumption. As you stated, your answer was only your personal opinion, but it seems you fail to understand that was exactly what I wanted. (More specifically, some understanding, even if incomplete and non-final, of the basis of your opinion, of how you arrived at it.) I was not looking for any "authoritative" Wikipedia opinion, nor was I seeking some broader consensus, I was interested in your opinion. I am baffled that you seem to not understand that, do not accept that I accept your answer. (As an answer. Don't like it much, but that is beside the point.)
Anyone else care to comment? Am I missing something here? - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:27, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
I think you place too much weight on my personal opinion, but I did miss that you were only after that rather than wider opinion. My objection came when you said (at the Bureaucrats' Noticeboard) that I had answered your question. I assumed that I had answered a question you had posed to the bureaucrats, and I was trying to say that you should still wait for an answer from them, rather than just accept my answer. But I'm happy to move on from this now that some of these misunderstandings seem to have been cleared up. Hopefully the next time we meet, it will be working on an article or something like that, rather than meta-discussion like this, which gets very tiring after several years of it. I still think you should ask some of the current ArbCom candidates what they think of matters like this, but I can understand if you would prefer not to. Carcharoth (talk) 01:45, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
My apologies if there was some way I should have made this clearer. There are some aspects of the matter I might take up elsewhere. There are even some aspects on which we might have an intriguing discussion, but no time for it at the moment. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:43, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Global cooling

Some of your comments on climate change-related articles (notably "Scientists opposing...") have been a bit too pointed. You've apologized for this which is admirable.[1] Please keep the need for collegiality in mind going forward. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:51, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Too pointed? Thanks for the heads-up. I would like to get AH engaged in discussion, and collegially at that, but don't know how to get that filly into harness. And am unsure where prodding becomes uncivil. Tips are appreciated. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:06, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
Re. [2]: "cannot" is not particularly wrong, but the reasons are off-wiki workload and a bit of tiredness about endless at best marginally-good-faith debates. I'm trying to fly two research grants (man, how I love these forms!) and do some actual science on the side... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:30, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
Miss your comments, whatever the reason. Keep working on the science; I'll try to keep class in order. :-)
J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:06, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Comment

Me again. Please consider softening this edit. Certain admins are looking for any excuse to put the hammer down, especially on those editing from the scientific consensus perspective. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:00, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the caution. I do try to not cross the line, but perhaps there are lines I'm not aware of? And too close to? If you should care to explain this a bit more in an e-mail I would deem it a great favor. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:36, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
Hint from a battleworn veteran: Just don't ever talk about another editor unless it's directly associated with Wikipedia policy. Instead of "blathering" say "WP:TLDR" instead of "idiot" say "WP:TE" or WP:DE". But be sure the shoe fits. Don't call them a WP:VANDAL unless their activities truly fit the Wikipedia-definition. For some reason I have yet to fully understand, the Wikipedia culture is that referring directly to policies, guidelines, and essays is always less problematic than having a normal contentious but ultimately detached personal discussion. One caveat: there are some essays that you should avoid mentioning. However, because of WP:BEANS I won't tell you what they are. jps (talk) 00:50, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
Oh boy. I am reminded of the time I was out on the rocks and could hear the rattlesnake, but not see it. And I wonder just what The Essay That Cannot Be Mentioned is, as I suspect I may already know of it, but don't recognize it for its toxicity. So what I am hearing is to not crank on the gears so hard lest something pops off and jams the works. Let me know if this can be fine tuned better. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:53, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Good job on all your geological contributions to the pedia. Appreciated. jengod (talk) 17:19, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, gosh, gee. Thank you for your kind comment. I do what I can, and sometimes – it works! - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:03, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

[Several items retained on Talk page.]

Notes

Notes on revision procedure

Just my collected thoughts on how to best convert the citations to Harv.

  1. If the footnotes are currently in the "References" section: move {{reflist}}) to "Notes".
  2. Go through Notes, list which IPCC references are used.
  3. Add IPCC reference templates to "References", make any adjustments.
  4. Start hacking.
    1. Biggest problem is named refs spanning multiple sections. If they are truly identical (down to the same section) the named ref might be kept. If not identical:
      1. Mark the note with an initial 'x'.
      2. Add the link name to a list (to aid in finding the slave refs).
      3. Revise the main (master) ref as described below.
      4. Replace each slave ref with a copy of the master, remove the link name, add the specification.
      5. When the slave refs have been delinked, go back to the master and remove the link name and the 'x'.
    2. Replace existing citations with Harv, with specification. Check link to find section heading (or get link from on-line text), move an pdf links to page number.
    3. Add "complete citation", "page needed" or "verify source" tags if needed.
    4. Review "Notes", test that links go to the right reference, make any corrections.


Comments?

THANKS FOR DOING THIS! (caps intentional) NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:34, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

No good work goes unyelled?? :-) - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:06, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Enescot comment

Hi. I notice that you've changed the citation style on Special Report on Emissions Scenarios, current sea level rise and global warming. I'm wondering whether or not you're planning to make these changes on other articles? I'm somewhat concerned about your changes since I've noticed that you've removed some details from the citations I wrote. For example, in current sea level rise, the section on "magnitudes of impact" in the Summary for Policymakers document is cited, but you've removed the Summary for Policymakers part of the citation. I think that that part of the citation is vital, otherwise you wouldn't know where to look in the print version of the report. You also removed the access dates from the citations I wrote. I think it's good practice to give as much citation information as possible, including which version of the IPCC report is being cited, i.e., the print versions by the IPCC or CUP, or the web versions by the IPCC or GRID-Arendal.

In the global warming article, you've removed the IPCC authors from the citations, as well as the chapter titles. I don't agree with this change for the same reason. Additionally, the IPCC make a point of stating that individual chapters of the report represent the work of the authors of that chapter, but do not represent the IPCC's views. Normally only the Summary for Policymakers is attributed to the IPCC, or the full synthesis report. Hence the need to specify the authors of the IPCC chapter in question.

My own preference would be to adopt the citation style used in effects of global warming. This preserves the full suggested IPCC citation, but reduces the need to fully cite the IPCC report (and other reports) every time. Alternatively, I would be happy for the existing longer citation style to be preserved, provided that it contains sufficient information. As I've stated, I'm opposed to any citation information being removed. Enescot (talk) 03:43, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

The short answer (to making more changes, which is a subset of improving the IPCC citations generally) is "yes". But keep in mind that the details of doing this are evolving. I am in general agreement with you on retaining bibliographic details, but I see we need to sort out some differences. Okay.
BTW, are all those citations/references with "Printed by Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K., and New York, N.Y" text yours? If so, I congratulate you -- they are the best of the five or six "styles" I've seen re the IPCC citations. If they had all been to that level I probably would have left well enough alone. But the bare urls, and even an instance of linking to the Google Books copy, got me motivated, and then I've wanted to make them as perfect as possible. Which has led to some trade-offs. E.g., I feel the "printed by ..." is not useful, and just clutters the entry. Certainly we want to include Cambridge University Press as the publisher, but I think they are well enough known that the locations don't need to be included. (And if they do, then why not Melbourne, as well?) So I omit "printed by ...", and I hope that is acceptable; I really don't see any point for it. (I do include the ISBNs!)
I'm having some connectivity problems, so have to defer further discussion till later. _ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:28, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
Just a little time left, but hope to cover a few more points. Note that I have provide an illustration of my recommendation (at its current evolutionary stage!) at Talk:Global_warming#Citation_of_IPCC_authors, where I have tried to cover the main points. I should perhaps point out that though I am generally inclined to retaining various details, I am also inclined toward removing redundant (and tedious) repetitions of those details. This is a significant advantage of using Harv.
Regarding access-dates: those are appropriate for web pages where the content is possible in ferment. But the content of these web pages (the on-line html version of the IPCC reports) is derived from a source of definite content (ultimately, the printed book). We do presume that the book/pdf/html formats are essentially identical, but that seems reasonable enough in this case. In any event, where multiple authors may be making multiple accesses to the material the concept of a particular access date breaks down.
The references at Effects of global warming#References are pretty good, but I would point outseveral problems. E.g., the citations in the first several notes are inconsistent, and even incomplete. Also, a citation to something like "Smith, J.B., et al. ... in McCarthy 2001" is rather opaque, and a reader could easily miss that this is part of an IPCC report. It helps that McCarthy was just cited in connection with the IPCC (fn. 2), but this also gets backs to inconsistency. (I suspect these first several citations are not your work.)
Further down (fn. 7, Baede) matters improve markedly, but there is a great deal of repeated information, which use of Harv (see my illustration) would greatly alleviate.
I think that covers the main points. And as I have said elsewhere, I am contemplating restoring the lead author for the Global warming citations. Taking them out did bother me, but at that time I just hadn't sorted out how to handle them.
- J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:39, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply. I did include all the "printed by" stuff. I did this mainly because of a dispute on economics of global warming concerning verifiability. I certainly agree that some of the IPCC citations in articles could be improved, and I'm pleased that you're making the changes. However, as I've mentioned, I think keeping the IPCC chapter names may be helpful. I agree that the first few references in effects of global warming could be improved.
With respect to the "printed by" stuff, I think this could be important. The are two examples I know of of differences between versions of the IPCC reports. The first one regards an erroneous discount rate (0.1%) cited for the Stern Review in a PDF version (p.232) of an IPCC chapter. In the html version, this correct discount rate is cited (approx. 1.4%). The other example is of an error in the estimated costs of stabilizing atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases (PDF, p.119, fig 7-3), which has been corrected in a separate PDF. There may possibly be other examples, and I don't know if the IPCC revises their reports on the web. I think the errata is probably revised occasionally. I suppose that by citing the electronic version, it should be clear to the reader of the article that the electronic version (either html or PDF) is being referred to. Obviously the citation would need to be verified as well. Enescot (talk) 09:40, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
There is a good question of regarding chapter titles and section headers, which is substantial enough that I would like to defer that for now, then take up with the broader crowd. As to the possible differences in the hb/pb/pdf/html forms, I'm pretty sure we would have heard by now if there were any substantial or really signficant differences. So we're really looking at the errata. (An advantage of printed books is that is harder to do a "1984" on dispersed physical artefacts. An advantage of on-line forms is the ability to correct errors.)
AR4 has a list of errata on-line (TAR has a link, but it's broken). It appears they do update the html (I haven't checked the pdfs), and thus post-publication differences from the printed forms. But it all looks pretty minor (captions, citations, and such), and I think it is a solid enough presumption that the reports are effectively the same in all formats. If the citation is specific enough then it should be pretty easy to check against the errata list for exceptions, and any needed correction, as well as a comment about the discrepancy, can be put into the note.
Therefore I think "this version..." is unneedful, even confusing, as all versions of a given report are effectively identical (except where otherwise noted?). Yes, strictly speaking an editor should specify where he "saw it". But if different editors check a point in different formats are we to have different references for each format? For each editor? Each report here, in all formats, is essentially but one work; I think a single reference (carefully checked!) should suffice for all purposes. (Distinct from multiple citations.)
In regards of the publisher's location ("Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA."), that seems to be totally unnedessary, and even anachronistic. Publisher's location is really only needed for an obscure publisher. If a reader is not familiar with one of the most prestigious academic publishers in the world (and the acronym is hardly useful here) then I could see a link of some sort. But here this is not even pedantically correct, and only clutters the references. I don't understand why you seem attached to this; is there any particular reason to not dump it?
And perhaps more comments at Talk:Global warming.
_ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:31, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
Sorry - I didn't myself explain clearly. I feel that the issue of citing different versions can be ignored provided that the citation to the electronic version is verified. I agree that the location information for CUP is unnecessary. For the IPCC reports not published by CUP, but published by the IPCC itself (FAR, SAR and AR4 synthesis reports), I think that retaining location information could be helpful. Enescot (talk) 12:35, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
I am not clear on what you mean by "provided that the citation to the electronic version is verified." For sure, all citations should be verified, and the url to the on-line text ("electronic version"?) is the handiest way of doing so. Perhaps you mean that an editor referencing the pdf (or print?) should check against the on-line text? (Or the errata?) That would seem to be good practice, but beyond requiring the url I don't know that we can make the horse drink. _ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:46, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, I should have responded to this earlier. What I meant was that if the print version is specifically cited (e.g., see [3]), it should be checked against the PDF or html versions. This would be the case where an editor was changing the citation from the print version to the PDF/html versions. In the articles that I've edited, this only would apply to the SAR WG3 report, where I've specifically referred to the print version, and I haven't checked them against the PDF version. In all the other Wikipedia articles I've looked at, the PDF/html versions of the IPCC reports are cited, making this issue irrelevant. Enescot (talk) 13:41, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
I am still not clear on your point. If you mean verifying page numbers in a print version with page numbers in the pdf version: I think the SAR pdf was scanned (and OCRed); I think we can pretty much trust the image to be a true copy. In this respect I reckon a pdf to be equivalent to a print version. (I presume we are not talking about internal page numbering of a pdf file; the only reason for using that is if the the pdf is original and the content is not paginated.) Is that what you meant? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) 20:43, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
In my edits, I think I've always used the print edition page numbering, so my only concern is with substantive differences (e.g., the two examples I gave earlier for the TAR and AR4) between the different versions of the reports. As you said earlier, there are probably very few of these significant differences. I also agree that the SAR pdf and print versions are probably identical. Enescot (talk) 15:55, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
So how does the use of page numbers tie-in with checking the errata? I have been figuring that using a page number could be an indication (in compliance with WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT) that the editor referred to the print/pdf version. But they are not alternative to specifying sections (sub-sections) which are generally smaller than pages, and therefore more specific, and are present in all versions. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) 18:11, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
I haven't cited any of the IPCC errata, so I'm not really sure. In my opinion, if a link to the PDF/html text is provided, this should be taken by other editors to mean that that particular version of the report is being cited. I'm not sure about citing the PDF page numbers given in the PDF reader program. Personally I'd stick to the page numbers used in the print edition, even for the PDFs. Enescot (talk) 12:06, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
For sure, and isn't that what I've been saying? Which may be moot in regard of the IPCC reports, as I have noticed that many (all?) of them have cleverly synched the pdf doc page numbers with the printed page numbers. Very nice, in that scrolling down the document you don't have to calculate an offset. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) 19:09, 18 November 2011 (UTC)


I have found a curious anomaly touching on our earliar discussion on the correspondence of print/pdf/on-line versions. Take a look around Global_warming#cite_note-116 for the note citing the Executive Summary in Fischlin, Ch. 4, AR4 WG2. Specifically, page 213 in the pdf, which shows the Executive Summary. But not found on-line. And no mention of this in the errata. This needs further inquiry. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) 19:23, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

misc

AR4 SYR? ISBN 92-9169-122-4

From TAR WG1:

When citing chapters or the Technical Summary from this report, please use the authors in the order given on the chapter frontpage, for example, Chapter 2 is referenced as:

Folland, C.K., T.R. Karl, J.R. Christy, R.A. Clarke, G.V. Gruza, J. Jouzel, M.E. Mann, J. Oerlemans, M.J. Salinger and S.-W. Wang, 2001: Observed Climate Variability and Change. In: Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Houghton, J.T., Y. Ding, D.J. Griggs, M. Noguer, P.J. van der Linden, X. Dai, K. Maskell, and C.A. Johnson (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, 881pp.

Reference to the whole report is: IPCC, 2001: Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Houghton, J.T., Y. Ding, D.J. Griggs, M. Noguer, P.J. van der Linden, X. Dai, K. Maskell, and C.A. Johnson (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, 881pp.

AWESOME

Just wanted to say I cut and pasted my first fill in IPCC template just now.... thanks a gazillion for working on that! NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:47, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Citation vs cite book

Hi, re this edit - to get {{cite book}} to create the CITEREF links, there's no need to change {{cite book}} into {{citation}}. All you need do is add |ref=harv to the {{cite book}} - see Template:Harvnb#Usage (further information at Template:Harvnb#Wikilink to citation does not work, item 2.1.1.3 also Template:Harvnb#Implementation notes). --Redrose64 (talk) 12:24, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

While you are correct that adding ref=harv will fix the problem, switching to {{citation}} also fixes the problem. And also avoids various other problems. _ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 18:10, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

CRBG Article

You're right - i've been tied up with other things lately - & CRBG article editing has languished. Alas, Wikipedia is only a hobby (and a way to learn).

Talked briefly with Steve about the CRBG article. There is a GSA Special Papers compilation on CRBG coming out (he and others are working up the introduction even now) - he suggests that the major points there would make a good framework for structuring the article. He says they're about a month out from sending it into peer review. A couple interesting points for framing the paper (which will have to wait for the GSA volume since they represent new articles in the compilation) include:

  • Short time for the majority of the flow (98% of the volume in the first 250 kilo-years)
  • Rapid generation (basalt dikes which are associated with major early flows that show evidence through thermal damage of surrounding granite of having been active for <4 years)

Will get back to editing Wikipedia when things slow down a bit...

Skål - Williamborg (Bill) 22:44, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Good to hear from you. (Occasional ACKs are reassuring.) Good luck with classes, and perhaps keep an eye out for any fellow students who might want to use a WP article as a focus for their own studies? And I'm interested in locating a certain report; let me know if you might have a little time for that sometime. _ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk)
Given most recent articles and reports are available in electronic form these days, it is often not too heavy a lift to get a copy if one has a citation... Which report are you looking for?
I should also have mentioned above - Steve, without prompting, endorsed mantleplume.org as a reliable source - so he shares your view that it is good, current material.
They (mantleplume.org) generously authorized Wikipedia use of their figures via email - but now i've got to figure out how one loads them with the right copyright acknowledgement up onto Commons - and whether an email is sufficient (most publishers require written documentation as emails can be easily forged). To date i've only uploaded stuff that i created - & the rules for that type of stuff is easy since one can simply relinquish the copyright... Any experience there?
Skål - 130.20.3.152 (talk) 17:07, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
So much to cover! First, check out the GWMA pdf -- lots of graphics, though they may have borrowed them.
The report I'm looking for is: Kienle, C. F., R. D. Bentley, and J. L. Anderson (1977), “Geologic Reconnaissance of the Cle Elum-Wallula Lineament and Related Structures.” Preliminary Safety Analysis Report, Amendment 23, Vol. 2A, Subappendix 2R D, Shannon and Wilson, Inc. for Washington Public Power Supply System, Richland, Washington, 75p. There's a copy in Seattle, but S&W want $300 for a copy. And likely a copy at Hanford, but that might as well be entombed in the basalt. What I am wondering is if your library might have a copy.
Yes, I have experience uploading images. But did MantlePlumes grant access to all images on the site? Unless they have an understanding of that sort with the authors I suspect you have get permission from the original creators. Forward a copy of that e-mail to me so I can take a look. Permission is usually granted on a per-image basis. If they did grant across the site permission then a special tag should be set up, sort of like we use for the U.S. federal stuff.
_ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:20, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

<==

  • Yes, GWMA pdf looks good. Still reading. It inspires a discussion of economic value and other significance of the formation, including: 1) aquifers 2) possible trap for methane from organics in the Swauk formation (continuation of the Chuckanut Formation from the wet side of the Cascades) below the basalt & 3) instructive on characteristics of large igneous provinces ...
  • “Geologic Reconnaissance of the Cle Elum-Wallula Lineament and Related Structures.” does not show up in any of the three local databases (card catalog equivalents). I'll be in the library Tuesday, and will ask a librarian if they know some other place to look. Otherwise I suspect Energy Northwest has it, but one can expect to pay a fee there too.
  • I've shot you a ... and will forward the mantleplume email when address confirmed...
  • Wrote a summary paragraph on article by Ho on speed of basalt placement - pretty amazing how fast the geologists suggest it flowed.

More later - Williamborg (Bill) 00:11, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that stuff was HOT, and fast. – J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:47, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

ProveIt

Hi JJ. Are you aware of ProveIt? I'd be interested in your comments. --Epipelagic (talk) 09:13, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Interesting, but may be a few days before I can look at it. Thanks for pointing it out. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) 22:01, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Climate_change_alarmism

This deals with your actions. 86.** IP (talk) 01:08, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion.2FGlobal warming_conspiracy_theory_.283rd_nomination.29.23Global_warming_conspiracy_theory

86.** IP (talk) 22:42, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Unexplained reversion

Please explain why there is a tag, asking for a page number, for a source that does not have page number? The citation refers to a table which is more precise than a page number, even if there were page numbers. All of which was explained in my edit summary. Your [edit summary suggests looking at the talk page, but I don't see any discussion of the need for page numbers on the talk page. Can you point out what discussion you mean?--SPhilbrick(Talk) 22:26, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

You are too fast! I just finished commenting there. Basically, I sometimes use the "page needed" tag when what is really needed is a {{section needed}} tag, or some such. That the the html version of the report does not have pagination (though the print/pdf versions do) is why we need to use section numbers. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:32, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
Different people have different styles, but I try to post my comments on the talk page before I make the edit, just to avoid this. BTW, I'm a fan of LDR, and have used it quite a bit. I think I saw that you were in favor.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 22:39, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, that's probably a good point. I didn't think I was a slow-poke, but I did pause to sniff that other comment. And you are pretty quick.
I believe my comment re LDRs is that at least they pull the citation templates out of the article text. Other than that – boo! hiss! I still recall my first encounter with an LDR. I didn't know about the concept, and it took me the longest time to find where the damned master named ref was hiding. I'll take Harv every day. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:53, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
Sorry if I over-reacted.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 22:57, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
No problem. One of these days I may ask for a more specific tag. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:09, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

A couple other comments.

A couple other comments.

  • I see someone asking you about ProveIt - my only involvement is with someone reporting a problem here, so I didn't look into it, but if you check it out, I would love to hear your reaction
  • I see a reference to an IPCC template - if this a customized citation template?--SPhilbrick(Talk) 22:54, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I have developed a canonical templated citation for the principal IPCC ARs. You can see them further up, but probably better to look at IPCC/citation, which has an explanation, and links to the different sets of templates.
I am remisss in having not yet looked at ProveIt. Someday .... ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:30, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the link, that helps. Unfortunately, I do not like Harvard referencing, so we aren't on the same page there, but good work coming up with a canonical standard.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 01:27, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
The "full reference" provided by the filled-in template is completely independent of whether it is used with Harv. But replicating the full reference (template) everytime it is called out (the "in ...." bit) is cumbersome. And having simply the straight text ("in IPCC AR4 WG1 2007") without providing a link seems, well, silly. In so far as the "con" crowd allows that Harv might be good in some cases, I would say this is one of those cases.
Perhaps you would be interested in discussing it further? (Once I get caught up with all this other stuff.) ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:04, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Quote Parameter in citations

You contributed to a discussion either here or here. I'm attempting to summarize and move the discussion forward here. You may well have this page watchlisted, but as I am trying to carny on in a slightly different place, I'm letting everyone know who contributed.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 17:08, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Please format this....

HI JJ. How do I cite this [4] In the pdf it is page 45. Note that this is the SYNTHESIS REPORT ITSELF and is NOT the "summary for policy makers" chapter often excerpted from the syr. Thanks NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:28, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Good question, and good timing, as that's just what've been working on. The SYR is a little tricky (esp. the SPM), but what I've come around to currently is something like:
IPCC, Topic 3, Section 3.2.1: 21st century global changes, p. 45, in IPCC AR4 SYR 2007.
In edit mode this would be:
IPCC, [http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/syr/en/mains3.html Topic 3], [http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/syr/en/mains3-2-1.html Section 3.2.1: 21st century global changes], [http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr.pdf p. 45], in {{Harvnb|IPCC AR4 SYR|2007}}.
You could also add the title of the topic ("Topic 3: Climate change and its impacts in the near and long term under different scenarios"); I am some what ambivalent about that. Of course, if you are citing "Figure 3.1" then you should insert that before the page number. Does that work for you?
And now, back into the pool!  :-)     J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:57, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks! That is exactly what I needed, and it was just posted as an example to the how to cite IPCC page, and also to sea level rise, (in case you are not watching them). NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:58, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Emotion.....

Hi JJ,

You have often opined you think there's too much emotion to talk about citation issues rationally. I'm writing to suggest that, to the extent you are pointing fingers at some (or all) of the rest of us, you are partly correct. However, as often happens, this thing is like a coin.... there's a heads side and a tails side. A left hand and a right. Yin and Yang. Whatever. Judging from the droll black and white characters that appear on my screen, devoid of body language and intonation and the like, I would like to suggest that you are contributing your own emotion to the discussion. Passion; Stubbornness; A degree of hubris that you can know the psychology under which the rest of us are operating. My advice is: chill out, buddy. Accept that there may be something for you to learn in this process. If you can do that, consensus will become fully developed. If not, then the likely outcome is the discussion will fizzle, to the detriment of us all. I say "detriment of us all" because everyone has agreed with you that you've hit on an important issue, and all your work has placed it on the agenda. So another positive emotion to chalk up on your ledger is "pride". No one would be discussing this if you hadn't convinced us to do so. On the flip side, ya just gotta accept that folks may not think the obvious solution is the same "obvious" solution you see. And that means it is not obvious. So a good plan would be to express your approval of a method, without clobbering those who disagree. In sum, I agree there is a lot of emotion getting in the way. I disagree with the implicit suggestion that none of it is yours. If we can get past all of it, from whatever source, we'll be on the road to a strong consensus. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:04, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Hmnm. Okay, I think that's a good comment. (Like an earliar comment of yours which – though tinged with some emotion! – was illustrative, even persuasive.) I am inclined to think I am not nearly as emotional on most of this as some other folks, but I will cop to intensity, which in its practical effects likely works out to about the same thing. I had hoped that any "clobbering" would not be taken personally, and had hoped that I was leaving plenty of options to accomodate feelings, etc. Apparently not. As I see no point in pissing anyone off (well, no one currently present!), I will heed your advice, and ease off a bit. Thank you for your comment. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:37, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
It's possible, of course, for this stuff to be close to invisible from the inside looking in. I regularly over-estimate my own competence for all sorts of things. Is it possible you over-estimate your Vulcanism?
No way. Us Vulcans are never wrong. (So how to do a pointy-eared smiley face?) ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:54, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Civility warning

Please revise your recent comment to omit the "clueless" remark. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:35, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Done. I suppose I could have told him on his talk page that repeated omission of signature (hey, I only did it once!) conveys an image of inexperience and an extreme lack of knowledge. But I doubt if that would make any difference. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:04, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
In that case, 25-50-25. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:52, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Info on citations and at parameter use

FYI, in case you're not watching the talk page at Template_talk:Citation#The_.22at.22_parameter_suppressed_by_.22page.22_parameter I've posted some info you requested re citations and use of |at=. Thanks Rjwilmsi 21:07, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:24, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Your citation primer

It's interesting. Citations are a huge level of difficulty for most neophyte contributors to Wikipedia, and anything we can do to help people learn is worthwhile. One thing I know is that if I come across screenful after screenful of instructions about how to cite, my eyes glaze over; the best thing we can do is to make things short -- very short -- and get right to the heart of things. Your effort is a good one.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 01:26, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes, I know the feeling. "Good" has all kinds of facets, some of them conflicting, including "bite-sized pieces" and comprehensiveness. I believe the overall task requires not one monolithic document, but a set of integrated documents. I haven't yet worked out just how that should be structured. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:35, 3 February 2012 (UTC)


Thank you

Thank you for the message you left on my userpage. I have fixed my contribution with a bold keep now - I used the "copy and paste" function to do this. I was unaware that there had been any history of administrators counting things wrongly! ACEOREVIVED (talk) 21:10, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Did you request deletiion of IPCC TALK/citation?

Hi JJ,

Just checking, did you know that Talk:Intergovernmental_Panel_on_Climate_Change/citation was deleted, allegedly by author request? See deletion log, "22:21, 22 February 2012 Malik Shabazz (talk | contribs) deleted "Talk:Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change/citation" ‎ (G7: One author who has requested deletion or blanked the page (CSDH))" NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:07, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I guess it is an overreaction by JJ? based on this[5] --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:45, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I requested it. Overreaction? Perhaps, in that I forgot to save a copy. (Dang.) But in deleting it? No, because if I have to contest Kim on his insistence on putting comments in inappropriate places, or the NPOV tag, or dozens of other possible points, it's not worth it. I spent an entire month trying very patiently to sort out just one tiny, simple detail with Kim, to no gain. I estimate there are at least 20 points needing resolution, which suggests that I could go on for two years for no gain on a project I initially estimated could be done in 3 to 4 months. I prefer to cut my losses. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:24, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Seismic faults of California

Hi J.Johnson, I've responded to your suggestion at Category talk:Seismic faults of California. I just don't think it's worth expanding that table without some comments from others on the format, thanks. Mikenorton (talk) 12:31, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for completing citation changes

Thanks for completing the revisions we discussed to the citations given in effects of global warming :) Enescot (talk) 20:14, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome. Half a hundred tiny steps towards perfection.  :-) J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:43, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Climate change

Hi, I just looked at Talk:Scientific opinion on climate change. I don't know whether this kind of atmosphere has again become typical of climate change articles, or is an anomaly, but it doesn't look good. Again we have newcomers (or unknown persons, at least) reacting in a fairly hostile way to their inability to understand why the articles are written as they are, why the IPCC is regarded as a reliable source and so on, and this has got some regular editors being a bit dismissive and perhaps hostile back at them. I know that kind of thing happens to me too.

The minute somebody tries to raise behavioural issues on an article talk page, they should be politely but firmly pointed in the direction of dispute resolution. I regret that this didn't happen here so we've got a mess on a page that _must_ be solely directed towards discussing the editing of the article.

Could I ask you and other regulars to be especially careful here? The general sanctions (aka discretionary sanctions) still apply, and I'm trying to nip this in the bud before it becomes something nasty. --TS 22:11, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Sure. I think it's already nasty, well past any hope of a nip, needing a solid crush. But I have never felt comfortable about making formal complaints. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:41, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Template:citation incomplete

Re your unanswered query on 7 October 2011 here at Wikipedia talk:Template messages, there is {{Incomplete citation}} which is a re-direct since May 2010 to {{full}} giving [full citation needed] . - 220 of Borg 03:28, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Oh yeah, I'd forgotten about that query. Thanks. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 17:21, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Citation or Cite journal?

Hi, in your cleanup of Temperature record of the past 1000 years you've used the "Citation" template rather than "Cite journal". This is something I did ages ago at Charles Darwin and bots or editors kept changing it to "Cite journal", "Cite news" etc. while adding "|ref=harv" to the template to make the harv link work. In the end I gave up changing it. Since "cite doi" automatically generates a "Cite journal" template, it's as easy to change it by adding "|ref=harv" so think I'll try that to avoid any discrepancies which my eyesight would miss. Any thoughts on this? . . dave souza, talk 06:25, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

One of my thoughts is that I have some thoughts on this :-), having dinked around with "cite doi" somewhere a while back. My vague recollection is that I wasn't always happy with the details (or lack of?) that the doi process collected, or the formatting. Also, I seem to recall that "cite doi" is really a link into a central database, so in edit mode you don't see what is going to be rendered into the reference. And you are quite at the mercy of someone else thinks all authors' first names should (or should not) be initialized.
I am generally not satisfied with the "cite xxx" templates. E.g., I do not find the automatically post-pended period quite the feature that some folks do (come on, how hard is it to type a period?). Esp. as I often want to add other details, which then requires inclusion of |postscript= to suppress that little "convenience".
Similarly for having to add "|ref=harv". Although it is convenient that leaving it out, where some editor has used "cite xxx" to create a list of "recommended reading" or some such, suppresses generation of CITEREFs, and thereby avoids conflict with the references I add.
As to the occasional inundation by bot-armed evangelists: I hold my breath, then continue paddling on my way. If the counter-current is too persistent I just find another pool that could use my attentions. Of which there is a great multitude.
~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:26, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
Despite being something of a graphics guy I'm insensitive about formatting. Thanks for clarifying why |ref=harv is an optional extra. Rather than fighting the bots, I've tended to find other issues more pressing for my attention. Like researching and getting the articles into some kind of shape. So, feel free to do what you think is best as far as the science paper references are concerned. When it comes to newspaper articles and the like, my preference remains for them to be in the inline cite rather than having a harv reference which doesn't mean much to readers. Something we can discuss. Thanks for offering to assist, . dave souza, talk 22:45, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
I generally avoid "media" sources. But at Earthquake prediction there's a couple that I can't avoid, and I confess that I have been tempted to fall back on 'cite web' and call it good enough. And while I feel pretty strongly about moving all citation templates out of the text, referring to a website by author-date seems strange. (So I cheated. But don't tell anyone!) ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk)
Thanks, that's the kind of flexibility I like! When putting Charles Darwin through FAC we tried hard to stick to harv, but even there it got silly when trying to cite individual letters, and I think it's relaxed a bit since. The "controversy" is largely in the media, not in peer reviewed science. . dave souza, talk 21:42, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
BTW, what would like to do at Hockey_stick_controversy? I like the approach of listing the scientific papers chronologically so the development of the topic can be traced out. But how do you think this would be integrated with a comprehensive list of sources? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:24, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
It's a useful exercise to list the reconstructions as the strength of the original hockey sticks is that their principal conclusions have been reaffirmed by a large number of independent studies:sources tend to say over a dozen, my current total is 24 so I'm thinking of saying over 20. My thought is to have another subsection for all the other scientific papers, again it would be useful to list them chronologically as many are responses to each other. . dave souza, talk 21:43, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
Yes. But it's less than ideal to have separate lists ("these papers, and those papers"). Ideally there is one master list, and sublists just link to the master list. Like we would do with Harv. But for the kind of list you have in mind a simple Harv link seems is way too anemic. So we could think of a Harv link augmented with title, journal... hmmm, that starts looking like a reference! Well, let me sleep on this, perhaps I can think of something grand. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:12, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
Okay, here are two possible approaches. Both assume a bibliography (and so named) of selected works, annotated, and in chronological order, much as you have been working towards. Perhaps named as a chronological bibliography, so people are warned it is not in the usual alphabetical order.
In the first variation there is a separate "References" section for sources not in the select bibliography. This should be okay for non-scientific sources, but could be a little confusing having scientific references in two different lists.
In the second variation we merge all source references together, chronologically. The "non-select" references are indented and slightly reduced in size to give emphasis to the select sources.
I think either way could work. Comment? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:49, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
How would you feel about a references section for books and journal papers, listed chronologically, with all the news and opinion sources left in the notes section? I've been thinking that rather than trying to make a separate subsection for reconstructions, I could move the reconstructions list into the body of the article and use harvard references rather than the full reference, adding further info such as the period covered. Would it help if I tried that out? . . dave souza, talk 21:00, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
I am not certain if I understand. (Is "reconstructions" the list you have been extracting?) Possibly you're thinking of a variant of my first variation, which would be to keep the "non-select" sources in the article text (effectively the "notes" section instead of a separate list). If it was just just newspapers and web pages I might be tempted, but I think there are scientific sources (journal articles) which which might not be "select". And to have scientific sources sometimes in the selected bibiliography, and sometimes not, would be confusing. Also, even newspaper and magazine articles might be cited more than once, which is where you want to pull the citation template out of the article body and use harv for the multiple links. So: I am inclined to say "no"; pull all the references out of the text ("notes"). But I am also really tired at the moment, so let's see what I think after I have gotten some sleep. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:27, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
Yes, the list I've extracted so far is "reconstructions" which is a sub-set of the scientific references. What I'm now thinking of is making that list part of the article rather than of the references, and having all the references in a chronological list. The reconstructions list would show "• Briffa (2000)" using the harvnb template so it would link to the relevant full reference. I've already started using templates in this way in the body text, as in the first paragraph here. The Briffa (2000) reference appears at the end of that paragraph. Hope that's clearer, this idea would work with a standard references list but it would be nice to keep that list in chronological order to show the sequence. Tired too, will look in again in about 18 hours or so! . . dave souza, talk 22:18, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Took a while, have now tried it out – see what you think. . . dave souza, talk 22:20, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, I'm rather fried at the moment, likely muddled, and crunched for time. Not propitious, but perhaps my comments won't warrant a shooting?  :-)
So I see what you're doing with the lists of reconstructions, and that looks fine. Though I would suggest adding a colon after the author-date.
But the new references section? Awful! But instructive. The mixture of Harv links with citation templates is not a good sign — it means the list is referencing itself. The result is duplication of references. Well, that is easily fixed. (And possibly was just an oversight?) The instructive part here (and I find it very instructive) is seeing {{cite doi}} in heavy use. (I have used it before, but only lightly, so the effect was muted.) What I see in edit mode is bunch of stuff that is largely meaningless to me. I have no idea how one is expected put such a list in any kind of order. (Possibly someone has written a template! But that prospect rather makes me cringe.) So my recommendation is: use a regular citation template — {{cite xxx}} or {{citation}} — not {{cite doi}}. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:43, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Glad you're ok with the lists of reconstructions, it duplicates info in the references section but is easier to read. Will try out a colon after the year.
The duplication of references was a temporary hangover from trying to distinguish reconstructions that appear in both the TAR and the AR4, hope I've got that fixed now.
As you say, in edit mode it's incomprehensible. Probably the best thing is to use the edit button on the {{cite doi}} templates to get a completed {{cite xxx}} template, copy it, and paste it into the references section. Much clearer to edit, but also much longer with an effect on article size. Fortunately that seems to be less of an issue these days, so guess that's the way forward. The alternative would be to add hidden notes of author and year for editing purposes only, which sort of defeats the object. Thanks for your comments, dave souza, talk 18:58, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Adding hidden data (as sort keys?) is ugly, unwieldy, and exceeds what might be expected of most editors in respect of maintenance. Using 'cite doi' to get a filled-out template (which is then copied) is the one useful use I can see for it. But this is best done in a working area, not the article.
The sub-lists (of the reconstructions) can be put into any convenient order. Would you have any interest in putting the master reference/bibliography list into chronological order? I think standard alphabetical order is probably best, but I would not mind taking a shot at chronological. (Might be a learning experience, hey?) ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:52, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Making slow progress, I quite like having the master reference/bibliography list chronological as it shows the development of papers and sources: have now added a book which relates to the context of published papers. It's actually possible to work with the doi templates by cross-referring to another tab with the completed page to get the sequence and cross-checking the doi numbers. Using 'cite doi' to get a filled-out template (which is then copied) is workable, but ends up with a huge section unnecessarily, and loses the benefit of a central resource. Don't have very strong feelings about this, but as a way of getting a filled out template it certainly beats filling a blank one by hand. . . dave souza, talk 13:24, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
I think we've roughed out an approach good enough take to the Talk page. Which I will do directly.

~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:58, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Synchronization

Hi, for various reasons will be leaving the article alone for a few days, so the coast is clear. Will let you know here before I start on it again, dave souza, talk 17:37, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Okay. Should we synchronize our efforts here, perhaps on both of our talk pages (that orange box sure gets one's attention!), or on the article talk page? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 18:58, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Good idea. I've started looking at it again, if you let me know I might do a little around 18:00–21:00 (UTC) today, failing that hope to do some work 09:00–17:00 tomorrow, though not the whole of that time! . dave souza, talk 09:44, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
Ok, will make a start shortly. . dave souza, talk 06:53, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Finished for today, hope to edit during the same hours tomorrow if that's ok – let me know if you want in earlier. . . dave souza, talk 17:14, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Nah, that will be fine. I'll go in in a while, but Friday's I'm usually not on until 1800 or so. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:31, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Right, that's me done for today and don't anticipate doing any editing on Saturday. Will let you know when I start up again, . dave souza, talk 17:27, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
Ought for now. I may start earlier Sat. Undecided about Sun. I generally try to do some other edit (here, or on the Talk page) to let you know when I am lurking about. Seems like there ought to be a better way of coordinating. (Add it to the "round-toit" list?) ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:30, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Test bunny for citations essay

Hi! Months ago you asked for input here. I've finally offered my thoughts, which are as muddled as ever. Seems you've abandoned the project, anyway. Don't even click on that link if you're hoping for an intelligent response. :P Best wishes, Yopienso (talk) 23:03, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. (Test bunnies are almost as cute as test as test kitties.) I'm in a rather muddled state right now, so I may wait a couple of days. Maybe save it for when I want a good laugh?  :-) ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:08, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Nah, haven't abandoned the project, just been seriously distracted. Thanks again for taking the time, and it is good feedback. Comments there. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:05, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Well said!

This diff calmy stated and wonderfully succinct. Thanks. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:31, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the thin edge between saying little, and nothing. I am rather thankful you're doing the heavy lifting in that spat. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 16:26, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
However, I just saw "odyssey" and instantly thought WP:DEADHORSE NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:48, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Yes. My idea is to show him why his horse isn't getting anywhere. Though another word that comes to mind is "quixotic". Sigh. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:12, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

If it was a bad edit, why...

I see you left this sentence in the article:

"The scientific consensus and scientific opinion on climate change were summarized in the 2001 Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)."

If my changes were a bad edit, then why did you not change this pre-existing sentence as well? Perhaps my phrasing was actually worthwhile and a kneejerk response was not needed. -- Avanu (talk) 19:27, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

I reverted your edit at List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming, and only that. If you want to discuss that, or any other changes, the article's Talk page would probably be a more appropriate place. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:54, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Tags and dead horses

I'm responding here, as opposed to the talk page, because the topic here is your behavior, not article content:

J. Johnson: So, strictly speaking, you did not add it in the first place, and I apologise for the error. However, that is hardly "disruptive editing", let alone a "perfect example" of same. And far less disruptive than your initial effort to revive this dead-horse issue, your misrepresentations, your imputations of bad faith, and general incivility.

Quite the contrary. This entire talk page mess starts with me writing: "I reviewed the article today and updated the dates on the tags ...". This is a canonical example of WP:IDIDNOTHEARTHAT. Likewise, discussing existing tags which have not been resolved cannot be considered a dead horse. That you suggest such is another perfect of disruptive behavior. Allow me to again suggest that you back away from editor issues and focus on article issues. Your continued lack of focus is not productive. aprock (talk) 23:38, 30 August 2012 (UTC)


So let's get this straight. In the course of the lengthy "talk page mess" at Talk:List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming#Article still a convoluted mess of OR and synth et. seq., which you admit to starting, you accused me (in this section) of disruptive editing "as part of an effort to remove clearly valid tags". Whereupon I said: "It was no more disruptive for me remove your tag than it was for you to add it in the first place." And you replied:

Claiming that I added the tags in the first place when I did not do so is a perfect example of disruptive editing. aprock (talk) 02:17, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

And I responded that, strictly speaking, you were right: in the first place you updated the tag (the add coming later). And for that slight misstatement I apologized. As to why my reversion of your edit is a "perfect example of disruptive editing", but your reversion of someone else's edit is not, I grant I don't see it. But, I think, because you have a rather skewed POV on these matters. As the lack of productive focus here seems to be yours (witness the "talk page mess", which is entirely of your initiation), may I suggest that you back away? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:31, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
I never said your reversion was disruptive editing. It is your talk page behavior that is disruptive. I suggest you either stick to discussing the article, or take your concerns about my edits to the appropriate noticeboard. aprock (talk) 01:58, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Oh? Well, excussssse me! Your statement — "Your disruptive editing, as part of an effort to remove clearly valid tags..." — certainly suggested that your complaint was about the actual tagging/untagging, and your more specific statement — "Claiming that I added the tags in the first place [your emphasis] ... is a perfect example ..." — explicitly cites the claim. So your "perfect example" is really not about the claim? Nor even the tag? How am I, or anyone else, to understand you if what you actually say is not what you mean? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:29, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
If you read the entire comment to which you refer: [6], you'll see that I explicitly mention the disruptive editing: Your only real contributions here have been repeated assumptions of bad faith, from your first edit to this last edit. Maybe you don't consider your talk page editing to be disruptive. If that's the case, we can certainly seek the views of a third party. aprock (talk) 20:58, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Do you have some alternative meaning for "explicit"? Your comment explicitly mentioned removal of tags, and my "claim". What you have just quoted is your assertion of "assumptions of bad faith". But YOU PROVIDE NO SPECIFIC EXAMPLES. Perhaps you suppose that I am to intuit that you were implicitly referring generally to my previous comment about following your links? Hell, I was trying to help you, by demonstrating why your efforts are not persuasive. For this you impute bad faith to me! Allow me to remind you that one form of disruptive editing is personal attacks, which includes "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence." ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:26, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Here are the diffs for you, quoting my original statement to put them in context: And it's clear that I and other editors have discussed the issues which the tags are speaking to. Your only real contributions here have been repeated assumptions of bad faith, from your first edit to this last edit. If you require a catalog of all your disruptive assumptions of bad faith, I can provide them upon request. aprock (talk) 21:42, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
I looked at your "first" link, and that is me saying that you are wasting our time (which I support with examples); that neither ascribes bad faith to you, nor demonstrates any such assumption on my part. Now if I were to get into why you continue to waste everyone's time, perhaps there might be some motive which implies bad faith. But I don't believe I have ever touched on your motives. And I rather wonder if your sensitivity to this arises from your own guilty conscience on that. But in regards to me, you apparently have failed to consider that I can see several possible motivations. These would include ignorance (organic or willful), some kind of psychological sensitivity (I have seen this before at WP), inability to hear, or an unwillingness to hear, or perhaps an impaired perception of reality. I can even see a possibility (even if extremely small) that someone has you chained in a cellar and won't feed you unless you regularly show what a jerk you can be. NONE OF THESE possible motivations imply bad faith. (As to which of these possible motives I may, or may not, being assuming: feel free to guess.)
I also looked at your "last" link. That is where I tried to help you, by showing why your efforts are not persuasive. That you have not pointed to any specific words where I accuse of bad faith is because: there are no such words. Your complaint arises entirely from your own misinterpretation. Or guilty conscience. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:47, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Article in desperate need of proper citations

Hi, Gulf of Tonkin Resolution has MLA style in-line citations with a bulleted reference list; no superscripted numerals. I can't remember seeing an important article done like that. I'd love to see you wave your magic wand! If I tried to fix it, all I'd know to do would be to laboriously change each one manually. Please tell me there's an easier way and that you're a master of the method. Cheers! Yopienso (talk) 06:01, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi! So what needs "fixing"? Those superscripted numerals are only the links to the endnotes ("footnotes"), created using the <ref> tags, which are only where most editors stick their references (or, as I prefer, links to the references). Here the editor has chosen to put the Harv links in parentheses in the text, rather than in a note, making this an example of parenthetical referencing. (To the extent that author-date style short cites are used this would also be an example of Harvard referencing style, but short-cites like "Tonkin Gulf debate 1964" — though perfectly reasonable! — rather stretch that style.)
The essential difference between having the short cites in parentheses vs. a note is this:
  • (Moise 1996, p. 78)
  • <ref>Moise 1996, p. 78<ref>
(For clarity I left out the Harv template details.) Have I ever mentioned how simple this is?
But I would recommend not changing anything, per WP:CITEVAR, and because there is nothing really wrong with the way things are. Just a little different.
(Magic wand?? Oh, you must mean my old Louisville Slugger. :-) ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:02, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
Oh. To me, it looks like a college essay, not an encyclopedia article. Not questioning that it's OK, just new to me here, though I've read comments here about the Harvard style. Cumbersome and messy, imho. As a user, I really like being able to click from the ref back up to the text--specially if I'm looking for refs more than reading the text. :P
Thanks for explaining, and no, I don't know how to do this: <ref>Moise 1996, p. 78<ref> and it doesn't look easy.
Are you calling me batty??? :-) Yopienso (talk) 01:12, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
What's hard with typing "<ref>" and "</ref>"? I just turned of the wiki magic here so they wouldn't make a note, but if turn that back on then typing in the same "[1]" (check in edit mode) displays only the superscripted link to a note. And if add the "reflist" incantation you will see the note: " and ".

References

  1. ^ " and "
Easy. Even easier if you replace the ref tags with parentheses, and that is the main difference with that article. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:53, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
Nothing's hard with typing "<ref>" and "</ref>". Even simpler--just click on the little book icon! :-) BUT!! What about all this business? [Huh! I have to add spaces because I can't undo the magic.] ' ' ' & l t ; etc.
"Reflist," I discovered some time ago, really is a powerful spell. And now I see I should have checked the Gulf of Tonkin edit mode for {{Harv|Moise|1996|p=78}}.
My trouble: not only can I not remember all that code, I can't even remember where to look it up! Or keep track of little slips of paper (real paper, I mean, that kindles at 451) covered with jotted-down incantations. Yopienso (talk) 00:48, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
See, you're learning. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:53, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
Ages ago I added links to Wikipedia:Citation templates and Template:Harvard citation no brackets on my user page, which saves me having to remember! Also, J.J., all clear on Hockey stick controversy. . . dave souza, talk 17:27, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
Me, too. But then I keep forgetting what those silly links are for. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 18:04, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

feedback

I wasn't suggesting anything, only offering some points that might clarify some folks' objections, perhaps even determine if the form is at issue with anyone.


JJ, when you want to "perhaps clarify" what someone else is saying, please either do it on their own talk page, or else tell the rest of us something like, "If I heard you right NAEG, you think xyz, is that right?" And then there will be no confusion that you are trying to help clarify. Many times I feel like these good intentions that are not packaged as "did I hear YOU correctly" instead come across as statements of your own thinking, and since you're apparently thinking about someone else's thinking but not telling us you're thinking that, it becomes very very muddy trying to read your mind because all I get is the words on the screen. If you enter peacemaker or translator mode - and more of that is needed so its a good thing when you do - please write that way instead of keeping it a secret. You'll be more effective, IMO. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:13, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

My apologies if I was unclear, or stepped on your toes. I wasn't trying to restate what you were saying, nor even stating my own views. Mostly I was merely laying out some possible points, and wondering if they resonate with anyone. No attribution was intended. The last question is serious: are the two little words "List of" significant in themselves, or not? If they are (and I don't know the answer), then that may be something to look into. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:20, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
  • stepped on your toes you didn't, no worries
  • I wasn't trying to restate what you were saying I knew that, but thanks for saying so anyway
  • I wasn't ... even stating my own views AH HA that's exactly what I'm saying.... when you go off pondering out loud about what others might or might not be thinking, you really ought to tell us that's what you are doing. And then if you think you've told us once, say it again so it sinks in. Better yet, ponder about it on others talk pages, because ruminations of what might or might not be on other peoples minds really clutters up the discussion.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:37, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
You have reminded of what we used to call the "Standard Navy Lesson Plan": 1) Tell them what you're going to say; 2) say it; 3) tell 'em what you said.
Okay, I'll try to be really, really clear in the future. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:02, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

2009 L'Aquila earthquake

If this isn't on your watchlist, you might want to add it. See my revert at Earthquake prediction also, same editor. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 05:56, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I think I'll do that. Don't really want to go there, but eternal vigilance, etc. Thanks for the reverts. (Maybe you'd whack the dog study, too?) ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 17:43, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

civility warming, no personal attacks.

Consider yourself warned. [7]--Africangenesis (talk) 07:17, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Shouldn't you let "WMC and Schulz" speak for themselves as to whether (as you have claimed) I have "attacked" their intelligence? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:30, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
Ag is now banned from all this stuff [8], including replying to you, so I think you can forget this little matter William M. Connolley (talk) 22:34, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Section headings in Talk:List of scientists...

Re [9] I've gone ahead and moved it to where I think the discussion went off track. I'm not sure if you want to keep a different section heading at your location or not. Seems like the section heading was inappropriate though, so I changed it to something rather generic. --Ronz (talk) 20:03, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:J._Johnson/Archive_1&oldid=1146335680"