| Revision as of 19:29, 16 September 2017 editDawnseeker2000 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, File movers, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers485,045 edits →Template:M: new section← Previous edit | Revision as of 19:56, 16 September 2017 edit undoJ. Johnson (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, IP block exemptions19,647 edits →Template:M: Categories!Next edit → | ||
| Line 127: | Line 127: | ||
| As of this afternoon, there are a handful of uses of short period Mb, which is apparently what the NEIC's PDE uses, and there's just one instance of the broadband MB. Do you know whereabouts in the encyclopedia this is used? Was just reading up about these variations because I will be using the src= field for the first time and wanted to ensure that I'm on the right track before posting a new article. ] 19:29, 16 September 2017 (UTC) | As of this afternoon, there are a handful of uses of short period Mb, which is apparently what the NEIC's PDE uses, and there's just one instance of the broadband MB. Do you know whereabouts in the encyclopedia this is used? Was just reading up about these variations because I will be using the src= field for the first time and wanted to ensure that I'm on the right track before posting a new article. ] 19:29, 16 September 2017 (UTC) | ||
| :Ah, that's the point and utility of having ''tracking categories''! E.g., at the bottom of ] you'll see a link to ]. Click on that, and you'll find categories for each of the different scales (and some admin categories). Click on, say, M_b, and, voila!, there is your list of instances. M_B (mB), I see, is used only in ], and unlikely to be seen much anywhere except for historical catalogs. But M_b (mb) is starting to collect some documented uses. ~ ] (]) 19:56, 16 September 2017 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 19:56, 16 September 2017
|
|
A handy collection of useful links.
Canonical IPCC citations.
The canonical forms for citing the IPCC documents are at:
Ask if you have questions or need assistance.
Asking your thoughts on the verifiability of a vacuum of sources
Hi. You recently responded to a WT:V discussion about the verifiability of a source’s absence. Can I ask for your thoughts on the rationale at Talk:Jacob Barnett#Source support for lack of publishing/vetting? I’m not asking you to get involved there (you of course may if you want); I’d just like to know your opinion on the arguments presented. Thanks! —67.14.236.50 (talk) 02:01, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
- For clarity’s sake, here is the article as I first found it. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 02:09, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
- Perhaps not. I doubt that I could make any pertinent comments without studying the discussion, and I am currently rather constrained for time. Sorry. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:58, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
- All right. Thanks for responding, at any rate! —67.14.236.50 (talk) 23:31, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
- Perhaps not. I doubt that I could make any pertinent comments without studying the discussion, and I am currently rather constrained for time. Sorry. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:58, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
|
The Barnstar of Good Humor |
| This is the funniest thing I've read today. Thank you. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:37, 4 January 2017 (UTC) |
I loved this second sentence. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:34, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
- I'm glad someone appreciated it. (Thanks.) I've always hated "middle of the road" as a metaphor for moderation. It rather makes me want to laugh and scream at the same time. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 17:32, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
|
The Tireless Contributor Barnstar |
| Hi J. Johnson (JJ), Thanks a lot for the great work you do for Misplaced Pages (articles, pages created), especially the Geology articles. Thanks, 2know4power (talk) 05:20, 13 January 2017 (UTC) |
Stellar body in the hayloft
|
The Barnstar of Diligence | |
| Because this is how to properly close an RfC: careful and detailed analysis of the arguments presented and their bases, with a particular eye to what is best for the encyclopedia and its readers, not just editorial egoes and wikipolitics. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ⱷ҅ᴥⱷ≼ 07:56, 10 March 2017 (UTC) |
- @SMcCandlish: Concur, but see Misplaced Pages:Village pump (idea lab)/Archive 22#Recognition for closers, no traction. In my experience, most closes are pretty good and most receive silence (if the closer is lucky). ―Mandruss ☎ 09:27, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
- Can always propose a Closer's Barnstar. I do agree with the old thread's observation that it's a one-sided matter, though I have in fact previously thanked a closer for a superb really-took-the-time close that didn't go my way. I don't agree that "most closes are pretty good", but most of the RfCs I watch are style-and-titles ones, and too many of the closers are partisan and just WP:SUPERVOTING, so my experience of the matter is very skewed. Even outside that sphere, I find many closes to be perfunctory head-counting and, while often not incorrect, it's disappointing and often almost necessarily leads to the issue being re-litigated later. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ⱷ҅ᴥⱷ≼ 04:49, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
- Yes. Even where a result is (by some standard) "not incorrect", the more important consideration is often whether the various parties feel the process was fair. It seems to me that a lot could be said about this, and have been tempted to start a discussion, but haven't had the time to go through the archives and see if it has all been said before. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:01, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
- Can always propose a Closer's Barnstar. I do agree with the old thread's observation that it's a one-sided matter, though I have in fact previously thanked a closer for a superb really-took-the-time close that didn't go my way. I don't agree that "most closes are pretty good", but most of the RfCs I watch are style-and-titles ones, and too many of the closers are partisan and just WP:SUPERVOTING, so my experience of the matter is very skewed. Even outside that sphere, I find many closes to be perfunctory head-counting and, while often not incorrect, it's disappointing and often almost necessarily leads to the issue being re-litigated later. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ⱷ҅ᴥⱷ≼ 04:49, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
- Wow, thanks. Frankly, I was figuring I would be satisfied to get off with just silence. Of course, the real test is whether all "sides" find the result to be something they can live with. Perhaps I should keep my head down a while longer? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:27, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
- Heh. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ⱷ҅ᴥⱷ≼ 04:49, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
- Wow, thanks. Frankly, I was figuring I would be satisfied to get off with just silence. Of course, the real test is whether all "sides" find the result to be something they can live with. Perhaps I should keep my head down a while longer? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:27, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
Wrong wording
Both here and here you write I am under a "topic ban". As you know from the ANI result you linked to, that is not the case. I was not banned, I voluntary left the topic. I strongly request that you change the posts to say so. -DePiep (talk) 14:10, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
- Everyone at that discussion, including the closer, understood the action to be, effectively, a topic ban. Which you voluntarily accepted in lieu of being frog-marched out the door, and possibly incurring a stronger action. And it is understood that if you violate this de facto topic ban there will be consequences. It was to prevent some passing editor from making comments that might entice you to return that I added the notice.
- It is rather curious that, given the vast breadth of Misplaced Pages, you are attracted back here. I suggest you practice resisting that attraction, and find other areas to run through. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:40, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
Template:M
As of this afternoon, there are a handful of uses of short period Mb, which is apparently what the NEIC's PDE uses, and there's just one instance of the broadband MB. Do you know whereabouts in the encyclopedia this is used? Was just reading up about these variations because I will be using the src= field for the first time and wanted to ensure that I'm on the right track before posting a new article. Dawnseeker2000 19:29, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
- Ah, that's the point and utility of having tracking categories! E.g., at the bottom of Template:M/doc you'll see a link to Category:Articles using templated earthquake magnitude scale. Click on that, and you'll find categories for each of the different scales (and some admin categories). Click on, say, M_b, and, voila!, there is your list of instances. M_B (mB), I see, is used only in Seismic scale, and unlikely to be seen much anywhere except for historical catalogs. But M_b (mb) is starting to collect some documented uses. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:56, 16 September 2017 (UTC)