User talk:J. Johnson/Archive 3

Siletzia
Finally got back to Wikipedia. Siletzia is extremely well researched and written. Well done.

Think there is a recent article (last month or so) in Nature that may have a bearing on the article. I'll give it a look next week when I'm back home and have access to journal articles again.

Best regards - Williamborg (Bill) 04:12, 4 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Referenced Nature article - doesn't provide detail for Siletzia, but is relevant to the larger picture. If you don't have access to and would like a copy, please let me know. Williamborg (Bill) 17:50, 4 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks, glad you like it. It arose out of the necessity of filling a very large hole in my own knowledge, for which there were no convenient summaries.
 * The Nature looks interesting (Sigloch has been busy); I may grab a copy later today. I am especially excited at the prospect it might integrate a broad view of Mesozoic western N.A. development (including Siletzia, Wrangellia, Sierra Nevada, Baja-B.C., etc.) It certainly provides a setting for Siletzia. But I think it would be more suitable for Farallon plate (which is currently only a stub, but whose importance really requires fuller treatment), where it could bear upon all of the related topics to which it is relevant.  ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 16:35, 5 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, very interesting. But I see that it is a proposed alternative to the existing view, so per WP:WEIGHT we really need to present it in that context. And again, I think this really needs to be in Farallon plate, which needs some development. Do you suppose we could get a few folks interested in a whirlwind effort to do that? I'm thinking we could identify the various articles that could use it as the basis, and then put up notices. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:33, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Dashes
This edit made a lot of work for me to clean up. Em dashes should not be spaced (except maybe where you use them to set off the author of a quotation, though that's not specified at MOS:DASH). I've changed to spaced en dashes, since that seems closer to what was intended, given a similar mixup in your previous edit here. Dicklyon (talk) 01:08, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

See also my edit here for ideas how you can stay closer to WP style in your future contributions; esp. note that we don't capitalize heading words beyond the first. Dicklyon (talk) 01:14, 1 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Some of those weren't my edits, but I'll keep an eye on it. My approach to dashes has been evolving; I'll try to review MOS:DASH sometime soon. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 17:55, 1 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I meant to be in conformance regarding en dashes, even configured my key-map to generate en dashes. But, alas, my browser and my screen font, though otherwise Unicode, insist on doing em dashes. I'm still working on it. Meanwhile, don't retire the dash bot quite yet. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:45, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

== Your GA nomination of [[Siletzia

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Siletzia you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Ironholds -- 00:42, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

International maritime signal flags‎
While your revert to this article was absolutely the right thing to do. Will calling the editor in question an "illiterate" do any good here?--RadioFan (talk) 02:17, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Depends on what you mean by "good". Although rather improbable (because they don't read!), if someone was stung enough by the criticism to start reading before they leap, that would be good. Otherwise I will settle for venting a little frustration. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:38, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Mind if I just say, I've now noted this exchange. (I'm down a ways at trying to talk gently, in a gingerly fashion, about tone. Cheers, Wireless. Swliv (talk) 23:41, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Re. formatting of Siletzia
I thought it looked better the way I had it, but I won't insist. Jsayre64  (talk)  03:31, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm open to discussing it. Particularly the {reflist|2} versus {reflist|30 em}, which I might adopt myself if someone would give me a good argument for it. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 17:55, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, I just think that 30em and div col make an article much more neat to look at. Two columns is perfect for a laptop. On a little phone or tablet, one column is usually best. On a big desktop monitor, you'll often want three. With 30em and div col, it's one-size-fits-all, so a list won't look strange to anybody. It will look more tidy. Jsayre64   (talk)  03:18, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay, I'm just about persuaded for fixed col width (more adaptable). But editors vary on the width; what would be optimal?
 * As for div col: that essentially forces two columns regardless, which goes against a fixed col width. By the same argument as before, this should use . But again, what width? I like shorter widths in reflist, as the references (esp. Harv) are often short, but the full citations are longer, and I don't like to break them up so much. Even on the widest displays a full citation generally uses most of a line, so I don't mind a single column. I do mind having a citation splashed over more than three lines. So a col width of 35 or 40 em? What do you think? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:45, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * You make a good point about just work-and-page footnotes belonging in thinner columns. I realize that the Natchez Massacre reflist, for example, would look better in 20em than the current 30. Vancouver Island's reflist, however, is fine the way it is. So the width should vary by article, even though you'll come across longer citations, such as in Vancouver Island, much more often than shorter ones, as in Natchez Massacre. And for articles with very few references, one column is fine.


 * For div col, I think if an article has at least as many bulleted works as High Desert (Oregon), refbegin (for smaller text) and more than one column need to apply. In fact, I just noticed that you can use just as you can with a reflist, but with an extra pipe there. I really should have noticed that earlier. So, since "works cited" citations are always full, you won't want less than 30em, and more width than that appears to force the list into one column. Thus, for Siletzia, I propose a 30em reflist and a 30em div col.  Jsayre64   (talk)  23:05, 25 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I am coming around to fixing the minimum col width rather than absolute number of columns. The remaining question is: how much? For full citations (typically in References, but quite often in Notes, etc.) I think at least 30 em, perhaps even 32 em. (I'm amazed how just a couple of em get amplified in application.)  Searching for "30em" (I believe the way most articles are edited reflist usually has full cites) I found 98k hits, but only 1,719 for 32em. (Oh.) In this case I am inclined to go with the herd.


 * Definitely needs to be shorter for mostly short cites and notes. I was thinking 24 em, but (doing a bunch of experimenting) see that 20 em might be better. And more popular: the distribution of sizes seems to peak at 20 em (4,722 hits).


 * Okay, I'll give it a test drive, but want to check it on a wide screen tonight. I can always come back and shoot the salesman, right? :-) ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:16, 26 October 2013 (UTC)


 * All right. It looks like you've done a ton of research for Siletzia. I hope the GAN will be a success. Jsayre64   (talk)  00:18, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:27, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Newbie flag proposal
I like your proposal at Village_pump_(proposals). You might not be surprised to hear that I like mine better. At first glance, my proposal has all of the benefits of your proposal, plus some additional ones. (I'm concerned about "using" up names on editors who do not stick around.) Perhaps we should talk, to see whether I can persuade you to help support me, or if there's some third option that delivers something better than both. If my proposal is TLDR, please look at "Problem 4", which is essentially your problem statement.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  22:07, 5 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, we should confer. I'll look over your proposal tonight. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:56, 6 November 2013 (UTC)


 * An interesting idea. And I allow right off that it would do pretty as much as my idea tries to do, and would do more. But "as much as" plus "more" doesn't necessarily mean better; you have to look at the negatives as well. Most likely your idea will do nothing at all because it has a near zero chance of being adopted.
 * One major problem is (as you suspect) making new editors second-class citizens. Look at how much static I'm getting for supposedly proposing just a "scarlet letter of shame", then consider what you would get for suggesting that new editors be given numbers and locked below decks until they come up with a thousand ducats(!!). A number of other defects could be cited, but the main point is that it is quite unlikely your idea is going anywhere.
 * For the more modest goal of identifying newbies I believe my proposal has a good chance of adoption. If we can generate some consensus. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:14, 7 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Did you want to explore this further? I do have an idea for you that may be much more workable. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:51, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I do. I just drove five hours, and haven't eaten, so won't add any more than this now. I have a very full day tomorrow, but will have more time starting Tuesday. I'll try to remember to come back, please ping me if you don't hear from by Tuesday evening.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  01:47, 18 November 2013 (UTC)


 * The names that you would give to new users are ugly, and about as inviting as the number and striped clothing given a new convict. You overlook that 1) many users want to come in with a certain name, and 2) when (under your proposal) they graduate from purgatory and get a new name there is a break in their history, making it harder to track.


 * I think you would have better success for a scheme where the registrant gets a name like the one requested, but with a suffix like "~1". E.g.: "Smith~1". When the editor has shown he is not ephemeral the suffix can be removed.  Alternately, if he does abandon the account then the next person to request the name gets "Smith~2". Eventually someone takes permanent possession of "Smith" and that name is no longer available.


 * For existent abandoned accounts I would suggest something similar: rename them using a "~0" prefix. As it is quite unlikely that archived records would be revised to reflect such a change, there would have to be some kind of notification in the account history that edits before some date are by another person.


 * I don't know that the foregoing is really a good thing, but I think it would be much more likely to reach the end you want. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:46, 19 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Hello? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:51, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, thanks for the ping, but overwhelmed with other priorities. Hope to come back to this.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  13:55, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, and buckle up
Hi, We have had our differences, and I don't really appreciate the nuances of citation formats, but you do and you care. Thanks for paying attention. If I read the IPCC page correctly, the tenative release date for WG1 AR5 is Jan 30. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:58, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I was wondering if I should look at revising all of that in anticipation of the release, but most of my motivation has been in other directions. Are there any points that especially need attention? Is there any interest in trying to get proper citation from the outset? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:21, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * It's easy enough to plug the new info into the templates you made. I still don't really understand the pros.cons of different approaches.  Someday, I hope someone developes a really easy demo page  This/looks like this;     That/looks like that.     Table of pros/cons.   Simple, for the non-citation gnomes to grasp at a single reading.  Now that would be a great tool.... and way beyond my ability. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:53, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * It is not really hard — provided one has an adequate conceptual basis!! Which I have now, but it did take a bit of work to sort out. (I've tried to clarify things at Citing sources, but it seems like there are some fossilized attitudes there.) I can give you a lesson if you want (always looking to work out possible lesson plans). ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:51, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Siletzia
The article Siletzia you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Siletzia for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Ironholds -- 00:52, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

May build character
Made me chuckle, as anyone who is aware of the disagreements over the citation page would understand it has nothing to do with citation style (and everything to do with using or not using templates) and hence has everything to do with Wikipedia politics—and internal Wikipedia politics that either builds character or sends the person away angry (or a blithering idiot). -- PBS (talk) 08:45, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, sometimes the scene here reminds me of Robert Service's ice worms that, having nothing else to subsist on, chew on each other, till only the toughest survive.
 * "Everything to do with using or not using templates"? Really? I thought that was just one of multiple points of division. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:09, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Actually, now you mention it...
You were right: There was a "brushes and paint" answer: Jc3s5h mentioned Help:Footnotes. That does count (if just barely) as an answer to what I was asking and is helpful. Sorry for my blanket denial of any such answer, in any form, having been made. There was, after all, one instance.

Though keep in mind: Only one, and only by one person.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 00:50, 1 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Everyone that commented at WT:Citing sources answered you in some way, your inability to see that notwithstanding. However, given the unlikelihood of any useful result, I am not interested in discussing this any further with you. Good-bye. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:00, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Leech River Fault
Hi. Thanks for writing worthwhile content, and for commenting on my nomination at DYK, and for confirming that the fault is a thrust fault. (When I wrote that, I thought it to be true, but then I waffled after seeing a statement in the article suggesting that the straightness of lineament could indicate that it was strike-slip fault...)

DYK articles need not be of broad interest. Most topics in the encyclopedia are basically special interest, after all, and DYK tries to show Wikipedia's diversity. You are contributing some very solid content, and it deserves to be seen by more people.

No hook for Leech River Fault is going to attract the kind of big audience that is attracted when the topic is something like sex or military ships (I'm amazed by the number of people who care about the latter topic), but ideally the hook will be interesting enough that people who care about the topic will click on it. I proposed the first hook with the notion that it might attract some geologically oriented folks (one or two of whom might possibly contribute to enhancing the article, or at least adding it to categories or wikiprojects), as well as people who are curious about terminology they don't understand. (Those people can read also visit Siletzia, if they want, and they may also want to read about subduction.) Also, sorting out terrane relationships in areas like Vancouver Island and the Olympic Peninsula may be interesting to anyone who has visited the area and puzzled over differences in physical characteristics that can exist across short distances.

I proposed the second hook for two reasons. First, because I thought there might be concern about lack of an explicit footnote in the article to support the first hook, and this was an easy substitute to offer up. Second, because my experience at DYK has taught me that many people around Wikipedia would find that factoid to be far more unusual than you (and I) know it to be. Many people would have absolutely no clue that most faults are inactive (see Template:Did you know nominations/San Quintín Volcanic Field for evidence of what I refer to).

You may be able to offer a better hook suggestion, or possibly wording changes to make my first suggestion more palatable to more people. If so, please do so! --Orlady (talk) 01:02, 8 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the comment. Are you interested particularly in the LRF, or just looking for points of interest generally? E.g., I think the distinctive linearity of Loss Creek, which reflects the LRF, is better catcher of interest. (And I have been looking at partially rewriting Loss Creek to explain that, but LC is, and most likely always will be, a stub. And I haven't yet come up with a better way of getting to that from LRF.) I'll think about some alternatives for you. Though I think there might be better points in some of the other articles. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:40, 8 February 2014 (UTC)


 * WP:DYK features new articles, newly expanded articles, and articles recently designated as "Good Articles," so Leech River Fault is the only one of these articles that currently qualifies for DYK. I'm not particularly interested in this particular fault, but ran across the article while patrolling for good new work to nominate for inclusion at DYK.
 * Facts included in DYK need to be in the article and supported by reference citations in the article. A hook on Loss Creek would need a source. If published sources state that the LRF is a thrust fault and is interpreted as having formerly been a strike-slip fault, that could be a interesting hook fact, but it would need to be stated fairly explicitly in the article and footnoted (to one or more sources). --Orlady (talk) 21:51, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Funny thing, I was just considering a formulation for you. Thanks for explaining about DYK (I have have been quite oblivious). I just revised Loss Creek, but agree it is not suitable.
 * There has been a professional difference of opinion as to whether the LRF "is" a thrust fault or left-lateral strike-fault (I think someone even suggested right-lateral), so of course there are citations supporting each view. But in opposition. (Curiously, exactly the same issue has arisen with the Devils Mountain fault.) Support of the emerging consensus that both views have validity (either concurrently, as an oblique fault, or at different times) is, however, still thin, and in sources that I don't yet have access to. So I have had to rely on some weaker sources. In a month or so I hope to better support that.  ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:15, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Leech River Fault
— Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:03, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

March 2014
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Earthquake prediction. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement. Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. slakr  \ talk / 07:26, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.


 * More like an edit spat. But point taken. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:53, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the citation template information. I still have to figure out how to import a template into Zotero. Looking at the Zotero forums, not sure that that is as straightforward as it should be, or why they don't just have the cite and citation templates built right into the program, since ostensibly, they are big on providing wiki support. I also have Endnote and I know my way around that program, but it seems like Zotero is better for making citations out of web pages and newspaper articles and it has the add-on option in Mozilla, but Endnote is easier to customize. Dr.Rivers (talk) 22:45, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Disruptive editing at Earthquake prediction
JJ, I believe that your editing at this article has been disruptive, in that you seem very revert-happy, and your approach to discussion seems to be to ridicule and dismiss opposing opinion, and then claim that people who disagree with you are not contributing to the discussion. You frequently characterize the views of other editors as "whining," and you tend to Wikilawyer. Looking at the past year of activity at this article, this seems like a chronic problem. I hope that you can begin to meet the other editors half-way and engage in collaborative editing, so that it won't be necessary to ask for outside intervention. Do you see a possibility that you might do that? Joe Bodacious (talk) 03:39, 20 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Joe, I would love to engage in collaborative editing; that is my ideal. But that is rather difficult when folks like the Wichita sockpuppet won't engage in the necessary discussion.  I also hold to certain principles — the Wikipedia principles. But I deny your wikilawyering charge and its imputation that I am misusing the rules or policies. I suspect that the basis for this is that you feel I am opposing a consensus established by you at the others at the RfC. (Right?) But please note two things: 1) I am not opposed to changing the disputed sentence (though I am opposed to "A"), but I need you to be more definite about what is wrong. 2) Consensus is supposed to be built on discussion, and on solid arguments. Aside from your comments (and mine) there has been no discussion of the merits or dis-merits of either formulation. You and the others may be thinking you have a solid basis, but as I keep showing: you don't. Which is not to say "you lose", only that you need to do a better job explaining your objection. (Responding to my questions might help resolve some matters. Or even just settling on a specific objection.) Yes, I wish to co-labor-ate with you. But I am not psychic, you need to help me here.


 * E.g.: you objected to "chicanery" because it implied maliciousness to those who predict earthquakes. And I responded, only to the extent that some unidentified "those" are engaged in deceptive practices. Does that resolve the matter for you? Or do you still have an objection on this point? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:57, 20 April 2014 (UTC)


 * [[Image:Ambox notice.svg|link=|25px|alt=Information icon]] There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.   Thank you. Joe Bodacious (talk) 22:32, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Just checking. It looks to me (from Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive837) that the silly topic-ban idea died from total indifference by admins. Is that right? William M. Connolley (talk) 16:34, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think you're right. It was ignored by the adults, timed out, and was archived without action. But not without effect. The experience has evoked rather contrasting feelings of being jumped in an alley and being on totally different planets. It has seriously eroded my satisfaction of editing on Wikipedia. And perhaps teaches me I'm too idealistic. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:10, 30 April 2014 (UTC)