This is an old revision of this page, as edited by DePiep (talk | contribs) at 14:10, 8 September 2017 (→Wrong wording: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 14:10, 8 September 2017 by DePiep (talk | contribs) (→Wrong wording: new section)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
|
|
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)