| Revision as of 23:57, 10 July 2017 editJ. Johnson (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, IP block exemptions19,647 edits →Civil talking behavior: comment← Previous edit |
Revision as of 20:27, 23 July 2017 edit undoJ. Johnson (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, IP block exemptions19,647 edits Archived some stuff.Next edit → |
| Line 115: |
Line 115: |
|
::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? ~ ] (]) 21:27, 10 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? ~ ] (]) 21:27, 10 March 2017 (UTC) |
|
:::Heh. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] ≽<sup>ʌ</sup>ⱷ҅<sub>ᴥ</sub>ⱷ<sup>ʌ</sup>≼ </span> 04:49, 11 March 2017 (UTC) |
|
:::Heh. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] ≽<sup>ʌ</sup>ⱷ҅<sub>ᴥ</sub>ⱷ<sup>ʌ</sup>≼ </span> 04:49, 11 March 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
== Washington hills, again == |
|
|
|
|
|
Hi, I enjoyed collaborating on the ] and ] articles, so wanted to give you a heads-up on another. You might want to have a look at ] and contribute? - ] (]) 20:26, 4 May 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Hi. An intriguing idea, but it seems a mite ambitious. There are several points I would suggest for consideration. |
|
|
|
|
|
:First, "Puget Sound lowlands" is awkward, and even ill-defined. There is Puget Sound of course, a distinct body of water. And there is the Puget Lowland, also a distinct geographical feature running from the Chuckanut Mountains in the north to approximately Olympia, flanked by the Cascades and Olympics (see <u>Barnett</u> et al. 2010). Which is roughly what people refer to as the "Puget Sound area", but not exactly. (E.g., some people on Hood Canal are somewhat disdainful of association with Puget Sound.) But "lowlands" is vague. It looks you are explicitly excluding some areas in the "List of hills with Misplaced Pages articles" section, but it is not clear just what is being excluded, and certainly not what the overall scope is. The inclusion criteria of a list is not just a key element, it defines the scope of a list, but it seems to you have only rather vague criteria. |
|
|
|
|
|
:I do note that your section title, "List of hills with Misplaced Pages articles", does suggest a criterion, but it is incomplete: it needs some geographical scope, such as "List of Western Washington hills ...", or "List of Puget Lowland hills ...". But that would be better handled as a category. As a ''list'' I wonder how these hills, ''as a group'', are more notable than any other collection of hills. |
|
|
|
|
|
:By the way, I note that most of the hills you have included so far have only stub articles, which suggests rather weak notability. And one of them (] doesn't have even that, it is only ''mentioned'' in an article. |
|
|
|
|
|
:Also, I believe (but it's been decades since I read this) that the "seven hills" of Seattle are those it was founded on, an analogy with the ]. And I am pretty certain they did not include Crown Hill, Magnolia, and certainly not West Seattle. And do note that "Mount Baker" is a ''neighborhood'', not a hill. |
|
|
|
|
|
:I think the bottom line here is that you might want to re-evaluate what you are trying to do. ~ ] (]) 22:15, 5 May 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
::Thanks for the feedback, I missed it here until now. Agree that the article title is a bit squidgy, maybe it will just be "Hills in the Puget Sound lowlands" to avoid the question of list inclusion criteria. Is the term "lowlands" really ambiguous? I thought it was in common usage. Several sources in the draft use it. Will consider changing, if I can think of something better. I find a mix of the following terms and capitalizations which seem to be used interchangeably but I'm just an amateur. |
|
|
::*Puget Sound lowlands - |
|
|
::*Puget Sound Lowlands - |
|
|
::*Puget Sound lowlands and Puget lowland (both!) - |
|
|
::*Puget Lowland - |
|
|
::For what it's worth, Misplaced Pages's ] article says the Sound is part of the Puget Sound Lowlands! |
|
|
::By the way, if you happen to know of anything referring to the Argonne Forest at Fort Lewis, I'd like to build it out a bit more. USGS topographic maps show the name but it's hard to get a firm handle on the extent and so forth. - ] (]) 00:16, 19 May 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::Yes, definitely "squidgy". Which arises from a flaw of concept. Even if you don't explicitly say "List" there is still a question of inclusion criteria. Alternately, what is notable about ''this collection'' of hills? It's not like there is this distinct grouping of hills (like the ]) with some shared attribute or characteristic. Even as "Hills of the Puget Lowland" (however that is defined) I see no shared attribute, as what you have is a very limited subset. In short, ] seems applicable. |
|
|
|
|
|
:::As to defining "Puget Lowland", I would not go with any casual mentions, especially from television. Note that the Washington DNR material you linked to refers to the "Puget Lowland" as a geologic province, and even links to a page on that. Unfortunately, they don't include citations for stuff written for general audiences. But even as amatuers we have options: start typing "{{tq|puget lowland geologic province}}" at Google and it immediately suggests "{{tq|puget lowland physiographic province}}" (perhaps DNR though "physiographic" was too big of a word?), and the very first hit is: "Scholarly articles for puget lowland physiographic province", with about 1600 hits. Unfortunately, there is nothing identifying which of those is authoritative, but check a few of them and they will quite likely cite their authority. But note: unless there is some official listing somewhere (geographical place names?), authors may vary in how they define the term. In ] (see n. 1) I went with Barnett et al., 2010; see the definition quoted there. |
|
|
|
|
|
:::In short: "Puget lowland" (uncapitalized) is likely casual, with no particular definition, while "Puget Lowland" is more formal, and more likely to be defined (though variously), and might even have official sanction. But none of this really helps you with a critical problem: you haven't identified any attribute that distinguishes ''this collection'' of hills from any others. ~ ] (]) 23:30, 20 May 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Seattle Fault == |
|
|
|
|
|
Hi, |
|
|
|
|
|
So, what problems do you have with the recent changes ]? I figured that the links can be incorporated within the text to minimize redundancy. Thanks in advance. ] (]) 00:39, 12 May 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:What bothers me about {{diff2|779916987|your edit}} is wikilinking "unclear" without any indication of what is being linked to. It gives the impression of yet another vacuous link explaining what "unclear" means. It is misleading. Rather like marking the door to a lecture hall as "janitor's closet". There are some significant – and dare I say, interesting? – questions about the termination, and I think this "door" should clearly identified so that readers who are interested will recognize it, and others might even be tempted to peek. Which is not to say the existing phrasing is perfect, but I strongly oppose hiding this pertinent sub-topic under "unclear". ~ ] (]) 21:58, 12 May 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
{{ping|Al Legorhythm}}: your last edit is better, but there's still a pea under the mattress that bothers me, regarding your use of "boundaries". This is not a term used in regard of faults; they don't have "boundaries". There is the trace of the fault where (but only if) it reaches the surface (some faults are not exposed), there is the location, orientation, and other structural aspects of the fault at depth, there is the nature of the movement seen in the fault, relationships with other faults, there are implications in the type of rock on either side. But no "boundaries" as such. The question of the SF's western termination involves several of those (which I'm not currently up to speed on, having not read the relevant sources for a couple of years). Summarizing that as "matters" may be inelegant, but "boundaries defining the western termination zone" is inaccurate. That needs revision. ~ ] (]) 22:28, 20 May 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Civil talking behavior == |
|
|
|
|
|
re your last edit, editsummary. It has this personal jab, ]-like. And as I mentioned before, since we met a few weeks ago, you more often do so, in an editsummary or in . Your "Before you over-extrapolate your physics in an area new to you" is plain schoolbook ]: ]. It also occurred to me that you called a fellow editor a "jerk" (that was before we met, so I can not be the cause. And maybe, maybe you had some right to do that? Still, does not look good). |
|
|
|
|
|
I strongly suggest you just leave out the attacks and jabs. And focus on content & improvement talks. -] (]) 00:25, 9 July 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Oh and one can not obviously careful edits just by saying 'undiscussed'. There is ] and ]. You are supposed to engage in constructive commenting (e.g., open a content talk). -] (]) 00:36, 9 July 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
:difflist |
|
|
: {{tq|1=you have not cited or provided any basis or authority for your opinion other than to chant "SI! SI! ISO!".}} (note the derogative tone set by 'chanting'). This after actually complaining that I did not source my point. -] (]) 20:12, 9 July 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
: in the es: {{tq|1=do not break the template simply because you don't like theformat}} -- while my change es did describe the substantial (not like-ing) changes (And nothing was broken). -] (]) 20:25, 9 July 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
:: Another needless unhelpful jab, turning a post personal once more. -] (]) 15:53, 10 July 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
: {{tq|1=Absolutely do not remove}} and {{tq|1=Leave it alone}} are a ''commanding attitude'', not a discussing one. This looks like ]. This tone usually prevents handling ''arguments''. -] (]) 17:10, 10 July 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
: es: {{tq|flat-out FALSE}} is both personal ("false"=accusation of being dishonest, possibly "wrong"=incorrect is intended?) and ]. All this without going into the posibility that you are factually mistaking. -] (]) 17:10, 10 July 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
:, , : three times you reverted while clearly ''not checking the edit itself'' (you even missed two external RS references that were available). IOW: reason for reversal obviously wrong. -] (]) 17:10, 10 July 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::You are hardly the one to complain, given your history blocks. And not even a year since you were blocked for three months for personal attacks. I think you have a very asymmetric view what constitutes a personal attack, but never mind what I think. Or, for that matter, what you think. See you at ]. ~ ] (]) 23:57, 10 July 2017 (UTC) |
|
