User:Jc3s5h

Definition of piracy


Congress does not know what piracy is, nor do they understand the Internet, freedom of the press, or due process of law.

Jimbo comment on verifiability
From User talk:Jimbo Wales: Here is a story for consideration. Recently in the UK, a Member of Parliament was accused of sexual assault. There was a flurry of news stories. Within a few days, the entire case collapsed and his accuser admitted the whole thing was a lie. For a few days, his biography was problematic in the usual way: the accusations took up a huge percentage of the article, so that there were serious undue weight issues. When the case unraveled, a consensus was quickly reached on the talk page that while we should leave the material in his biography for a little while, since some people may not have heard about it at all, that a good case could be made for removing the whole incident entirely, eventually, because as it turns out, it is likely to have had zero impact on his career, life, etc., because basically nothing actually happened. (I reserve judgment on whether removing the information completely will be the right thing in this particular case, but I can see where it could be the right thing to do.)

All of that is editorial judgment as opposed to be transcription monkeys. The transcription monkey view, which virtually no one actually holds of course, once they stop to think about it, would say that editorial judgment is wrong, that the information is verifiable in reliable sources, therefore we must include it.

What's point here? My point is that even if something meets "verifiable" we might not include it... even if it is true. There are also cases where it is possible to find a handful of reliable sources that made a claim that is false and never corrected themselves, even though it has become starkly obvious that the claim is false. It's wrong to say "verifiability, not truth" if it leads people to think that it is ok to not care about truth.

We want verifiability and truth. And relevance. And proper weight. And some other things besides!--Jimbo Wales (talk) 04:52, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Wikidata and verifiability
An RfC about Wikidata and verifiability was held at Requests for comment/Wikidata Phase 2.

To do

 * Clean up citations in Ophiuchus.
 * Clean up citation in Epoch (reference date).

User name meaning
I wanted to choose a random user name. I shuffled a deck of cards, and drew three. They were the jack of clubs, three of spades, and five of hearts.

Subpages

 * /common.js Javascript page.
 * /Gregorian calendar experiment
 * /YYYY-MM-DD articles
 * /sandbox subpage to work on articles or edits when it will take a while to whip them into shape.
 * /sandbox2 similar to above.
 * /sandbox3 similar to above.
 * /sandbox4 similar to above.
 * /sb-DATEtoMOS similar to above.
 * /sortTable experiments with sortable tables
 * /Harvard citation presents an example of creating Harvard citations with links between the text citation and the reference list entry, without the use of citation templates.
 * /Note citation presents an example of creating notes (sometimes called endnotes or footnotes) with short citations, followed with a reference list containing full citations.
 * /Boracay Bill on references is a snippet from Boracay Bill's talk page that I want to keep track of.
 * /Zodiac dates testcase
 * /Live examples of Julian calendar citations
 * /Citation testcases
 * /Date from Wikidata test cases

Articles created

 * 1) Conversion between Julian and Gregorian calendars
 * 2) Digital notary, a disambiguation page
 * 3) Moderator (town official)
 * 4) High Bailiff (Vermont)
 * 5) Rutland-2 Vermont Representative District, 2012–2022‎
 * 6) Rutland Vermont Senate District, 2012–2022
 * 7) Vermont Senate districts, 2012–2022
 * 8) Addison Vermont Senate District, 2012–2022
 * 9) Bennington Vermont Senate District, 2012–2022

Articles merged

 * 1) Apostille into Hague Convention Abolishing the Requirement of Legalisation for Foreign Public Documents

Modules created

 * 1) Module:Zodiac date, corrected calculation of sign date ranges (April 2016).

Significant changes to articles and templates

 * 1) New citations, citation format cleanup in Coordinated Universal Time
 * 2) Provide citations in International Atomic Time, which previously had a refimprove template.
 * 3) Jech v. Burch‎
 * 4) Universal Time (updated description of the main form, UT1, from the late 20th century version to the early 21st century version)
 * 5) Tropical year which had several reference related templates and a great deal of what looked like original research
 * 6) Zodiac date IAU modified 16 September 2012 to agree with a reliable source; previous version was based on an unexplained, uncited calculation that had some bugs.
 * 7) I added the "Numerical value of year variation" section to the Year article on 7 November 2012.
 * 8) Julian day. Replaced algorithm that was not supported by a source with one from the 3rd edition of Explanatory Supplement to the Astronomical Almanac and tested against a similar algorithm from SOFA (astronomy). (March 2013)
 * 9) Infobox zodiac. Call Lua module Module:Zodiac date instead of Template:Zodiac date in order to correct date calculations (April 2016).
 * 10) Sidereal time. Updated definition to those used since the early 21st century.
 * 11) Calendar (New Style) Act 1750. Participated in upgrade to good article.
 * 12) Leap year. Citation and date cleanup on July 13, 2013.

Significant citation cleanup

 * 1) Leap year (Cleaned up citations again May 2012. First citation introduced in this edit by Johnleemk.)
 * 2) Metre
 * 3) Birth certificate
 * 4) System time
 * 5) Certification authority (May 2012)
 * 6) Universal Time (March 2013)
 * 7) Daylight saving time. Undo introduction of vcite family of citations in August 2011 without discussion, when cite family was already in use. (July 2013)
 * 8) Suffix (name). (September 9, 2013)
 * 9) High visibility clothing. (October 14, 2013).
 * 10) Historia ecclesiastica gentis Anglorum‎. (December 13, 2013) Made citations link to bibliography. Working with User:Felix Folio Secundus, rescued bibliography entries from 2009.
 * 11) Astronomical unit. (May 7, 2014)
 * 12) Leap year. (April 18, 2015)
 * 13) Julian day. (April 24, 2015)
 * 14) Articles about zodiac signs (April 2016)
 * 15) Metonic cycle (March 2022)

Origins & basis of citation templates
I have always wondered what, if any, external style guide the various citation templates were based on. The earliest I have been able to find are


 * book reference is the predecessor to Cite book. According to the first thread on this talk page archive, shortly after it was created, it was remodeled to resemble MLA. (August 2004.)

Commas or periods to separate elements
It appears that all printed style guides and printed scholarly publications use commas to separate elements when the citation takes the form of a footnote, but use periods to separate the elements when the citations are presented in an alphabetical list.

Footnotes, comma separator: Chicago Manual of Style (documentation one style, can be supplemented with alphabetical listing with period separators); MHRA Style Guide; QST; Computer.

Alphabetical list, period separator: Chicago Manual of Style' (documentation two style); APA style; The MLA Handbook for Writers of Research Papers; MHRA Style Guide.

CS1 parameter lists

 * Module:Citation/CS1/Whitelist
 * Module:Citation/CS1/Suggestions

Design goals of Cite book template
Also, there is this thread where User:Gracefool answered a question on that editor's talk page:

As far as I can tell from the history, you seem to be the original contributor of Cite book. I have heard that originally all the cite xxx family of templates were modeled on APA style. Can you tell me if this is true? Jc3s5h (talk) 18:20, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * That's correct - but we weren't strict about it. Why? ··gracefool&#9786; 18:17, 21 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Sometimes there are new fields added, and there are disagreements about how to format them. If the goal is to follow APA, then the APA manual should influence the decision. Of course, if the APA manual was only loosely followed, then I guess it is decided by whoever is the most persistent. Thanks for your reply.


 * More specifically, there is a fairly new template, Cite thesis. There is disagreement about whether to merge it into either Cite journal or Cite book, and whether the title of a PhD thesis should be in italics. --Jc3s5h (talk) 18:49, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah it's not necessarily to follow the APA, so decisions should be judged on their own merits, and decided by discussion as per usual. As for cite thesis, I've posted its talk page. ··gracefool&#9786; 23:22, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Citation tools
See Citation tools.

To create a reference section in a talk page, so that more than one reference section can exist while discussing several examples of citation techniques, use Template:Reflist with the close=1 parameter.

As pointed out by HTH, Reflist-talk. close=1 is not needed (but is ignored without error if used). title= is optional; defaults to References (use empty title to circumvent default).

This variant is widely used to keep references within the talk page thread that contains the inline citation.

Citation of other Wikimedia projects
See Copying within Wikipedia

CITEVAR revisions
The part of "Citing sources" that indicates citation style in an article should not be changed without consensus may be accessed with the shortcut WP:CITEVAR. The revision that put the section in substantially its current form was by Kotinski on 22 September 2011.

Which guideline?
An inconclusive RFC conducted in May and June of 2012 on which guideline should control the format of citations, WP:MOS or WP:CITE, may be found here.

Dates in citations

 * User:Gadget850/FAQ/YYYY-MM-DD dates (added 28 February 2014)
 * Deprication of date linking (listed here 28 February 2014)

Large discussions about citations

 * Centralized discussion/Citation discussion

Tools worth remembering
User:MiszaBot/Archive HowTo

AutoWikiBrowser

Tools

Tool to figure out what revision introduced text.

User:PleaseStand/References segregator

AutoWikiBrowser/Database Scanner

Help:Diff

User:Ohconfucius/EngvarB

Pages worth remembering

 * Unicode equivalence describes how to normalize Unicode text to facilitate the comparison of Unicode text with the same meaning e.g., "25 °C" has the same meaning as "25 ℃".
 * User:Dabomb87/Summary of the Date Linking RFCs
 * Articles for creation–A place where logged-in users can create articles on behalf of IP editors.
 * MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist–A place to nominate pages for blacklisting on the English Wikipedia.
 * AutoWikiBrowser/Custom Modules
 * Portal:Contents/Lists of topics Almanac-style data
 * Donating copyrighted materials
 * Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act
 * File copyright tags/Non-free
 * Bots/Requests for approval/MOSNUM Bot contains a discussion of why it is difficult for a bot to correctly change between the mdy and dmy date formats. There are references to examples that appear in Wikipedia articles and references to printed style guides.
 * Requests for arbitration/Date delinking is the final result of a long-running debate.
 * Centralized_discussion/Citation discussion
 * Mosnum/proposal on YYYY-MM-DD numerical dates
 * User:Jc3s5h/Proposal on YYYY-MM-DD numerical dates
 * Disruptive editing
 * Closing discussions describes closing a discussion
 * Credo reference database
 * Help:Interwikimedia links
 * Help:HTML in wikitext
 * Line-break handling
 * Help:Displaying a formula

Templates to remember

 * or to signify that revision deletion is necessary

Copyright problem advice from Theleftorium's talk page
I am beginning to pay attention to the Copyright problems page, and I noticed you edit there. I want to point out that the CorenSearchBot seems to have a false positive with Kubrilesque, but the article has other problems, namely conflict of interest and no citation to independent sources to show notability. I have explained the issues at the article talk page, but would like your help with the best way to make a notation at the copyright problems page. Jc3s5h (talk) 23:58, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi. :) If you find a false positive at WP:SCV, just make a small note underneath it such as "No copyright concern: false positive" (it seems User:VernoWhitney has already done this with Kubrilesque, though). Template:SCV is really useful for that. As for the COI and notability issues, those should generally not be noted at WP:SCV. Conflict of interest/Noticeboard is probably better, or you can just nominate the article at AfD. Regards, Theleftorium (talk) 08:18, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Wiki page terminology
The Glossary has this to say about the text that is stored in the database and displayed in the edit window:


 * Wiki markup, wikitext, wiki text, wiki-text, etc.
 * Code like HTML, but simplified and more convenient, for example  boldfaced text  instead of &lt;B>boldfaced text&lt;/B>. It is the source code stored in the database and shown in the edit box. Searching by the Wikipedia software is done in the wikitext, as opposed to searching by external major search engines, which is done in the resulting HTML. The size of a page is the size of the wikitext. See also Wikitext, Help:Wiki markup, How to edit a page, Guide to layout.

The article Wiki markup describes the concept of a markup language for wikis, without being specific to the Wikimedia Foundation's projects.

The help page Help:Wiki markup describes the language used by MediaWiki.

In all cases, no clear distinction or definition appears that states whether the terms apply only to the markup elements, eg, "==" to begin and end a 2nd level heading, or if the terms also includes the English (or other language) statements that express the information content of the article.

Good article reviews

 * Voltage doubler
 * Ecliptic 1 July 2012

Database scanning

 * AutoWikiBrowser/Database Scanner
 * Database download
 * User:John of Reading/Latest download
 * I'm approved to use AutoWikiBot.

Committed identity
The forgoing is related to a card.