# User talk:J. Johnson

Active discussions
Getting started
Getting help
Policies and guidelines

The community

Writing articles
Miscellaneous

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.

## 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 Wikipedia (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 ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  07:56, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
Concur, but see Wikipedia: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 ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  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)
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 ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  04:49, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

If you do not want to receive further notifications for this case, please remove yourself from this list.
You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Canadian politics. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Canadian politics/Evidence. Please add your evidence by June 7, 2019, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Canadian politics/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:00, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

## A barnstar for you!

 The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar Your acknowledgement of my edit gave me the confidence to keep going. TheTechnician27 (talk) 06:21, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

## Citation bot

Sorry about that. I am trying to clean up pages that blocked the bot because of old bugs. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 21:25, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

It looks to me like some of the old bugs are still present. But what really ires me is removing Citation_bot from the deny list. If you think it is good enough to consider unblocking I would suggest dropping a note on an article's talk page asking for reconsideration. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:36, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
What changes do you dislike? AManWithNoPlan (talk) 21:43, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
Especially: changes in template formatting. Others have argued that it doesn't matter, that it doesn't come within the scope of CITEVAR. I say it does matter, as clarity in format makes checking ("proof-reading") easier and accuracy more likely. And if it does not matter, then why does the bot change it in the first place?
Specific points I have found essential for careful checking: |firstX= and |lastX= (for any given X, and same for "editor") should be on the same line. Which comes first isn't so important, but having them split on separate lines leads to confusion of association. (And I have found citations with "last" and "first" given different "X".) Same for |volume=, |issue=, and |pages=} (esp. for journals). These are related parameters, and sometimes I use the combination of volume and first page as a check for the right article. Another very important point: in vertical format the closing double-braces of a citation should be all the way to the left (cols. 1 & 2), especially when buried "in-line", as it is extremely difficult to catch the end of a citation when it requires scanning each sentence, and is not distinguished from the closing braces of other templates. (For sure, I can use the 'search' function, but often I am searching for something else.) If you think "my preferences" are slight or merely idiosyncratic, please come help us at Global warming, where we are trying to pull some 300+ badly formed and often incomplete "references" out of the article text so we can ease the maintenance and verification of both text and citations.
I also object to removal of urls to alternate sites when the url happens to contain the doi. Note that the DOI site is not the only site that uses a doi in some urls. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:46, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
I just ran it on the global warming. There is much to be gained there, but I did notice that there were are few white spaces changes, that should not be. Investigating. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 23:04, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
I figured it out, if there is
...|first=abc|
|last=xyz


Then the || get's converted to one |. Which means that the line break gets eaten. Clearly GIGO, but I think that the bot can do better. This was very common on the global warming page. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 23:08, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

I didn't mean to suggest running the bot on GW, and am thankful you didn't save, as that would have been extremely aggravating. But feel free to copy a section somewhere else and try it.
There is a lot of "very common" garbage on GW, which is why we are working on it. For most of that work we have to go by eye, which is why formating is so extremely important. I have seen parameters set up with the v-bar at the end of the line (thoroughly non-sat), but I don't recall any lines in form of "|first=abc|". And I have seen this splitting done numerous times where there was no such inaneness. Perhaps some regex is too simple. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:31, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
GW is an amazing test case. The white space GIGO nuts, but now fixed in the BOT. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 03:00, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
As I suggested before, how about loading a sandbox somewhere with some of the "amazing" GW content (both deplorable and desired) and let's see what the bot does with it. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 18:51, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
I have already fixed a couple things using it as a test case. It’s the Mos Eisley spaceport of citations: a wretched hive of scum and villainy. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 19:16, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
"It"?? Please do not use GW for testing, or run citation_bot there at all, as we don't need the interference. Please do copy portions of it elsewhere – though at this point it might be best to grab content from an older revision – for testing. A strong advantage of testing in a sandbox is that the results (whether ill or well) won't be confused by other editing. Also, one has a free hand to add special cases, and subtly refined variants to elucidate the finer details. And all without those pesky resident editors — to say nothing of the passers-by! — tromping all over one's beautiful data. Right? ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:40, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

## Thank you!!!

Thanks a lot for your guidance and reminders on ArbCom case! PavelShk (talk) 23:00, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for hanging in here. There was so little guidance (around zero?!) that I'm embarrassed you mention it, but I'm pleased if you found it satisfactory. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:21, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

## Threats

I take "And you're starting to annoy me enough that if someone were to suggest changes I'd be more likely to support them. Your interests would likely be better served if you just drop this discussion." as a threat to act to change an article to cause annoyance of me rather than in the interests of improving the article. I think you should review why you are editing on Wikipedia if you have that sort of attitude. Dmcq (talk) 21:49, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

## Leaving comments in the correct sections

Hi J. Johnson, I've been moving comments / threads you've started at the Canadian politics workshop page. As you are not listed as a party in this case, please make sure to use the 'Comments by others' section, instead of the 'Comments by parties' section to leave comments. Feel free to ping me if you have any questions, or if there is any way that I can be of any help. SQLQuery me! 23:08, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Practically a party, but I won't quibble about it. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:20, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

## A barnstar for you

 The Hard Worker's Barnstar For your diligence in establishing a citation model for global warming and developing consistent IPCC citations. Femke Nijsse (talk) 17:04, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you! ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:00, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

## I don't....

understand citation very well, but thanks for you periodic clean ups. If any of that was my doggie's doo doo when I didn't have a doggie bag I apologize. I have no more braincells to learn it better than than when you tried to teach me years ago. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:37, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Hey, don't worry about it. Citations generally, and the IPCC citations especially, are a veritable swamp where many editors have struggled, often taking inventive and even amusing approaches. Even my own work I have often found to be less than fully satisfactory, all of this showing how hard it is to be perfect. I do appreciate that you have not been making problems. And I'm working on better instruction. E.g., you might take a look at WP:BCC and see if it makes sense. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:13, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

## DS Alert - climate change

 This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date. You have shown interest in climate change. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic. For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 02:15, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi JJ.... Just sending this FYI to everyone recently in the topic area who doesn't have one in the last 12 months. And before I posted here, I sent one to myself too. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 02:15, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

## Thank You

Thank you for helping sort our how to correctly include the earthquake early warning information for our group. Disaster Reindeer (talk) 20:53, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

I believe the edit you are referring to was where I mistakenly restored your edit, which I have since reverted. Please read the message I have left on your Talk page, as your edits here are in violation of Wikipedia policy, and close to getting you blocked. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:07, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Please add back the QuakeAlert section to the 2019 Ridgecrest earthquakes. QuakeAlert is an approved solution by the USGS no different than ShakeAlert LA. Feel free to contact them for confirmation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Disaster Reindeer (talkcontribs) 16:19, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

"Please" is a definite improvement from your previous imperious "Do not remove" (here). But you still fail to understand that no one "must be mentioned" (here) simply because they are a USGS partner, or that Wikipedia does not exist for the promotion of your group. In particular, I advise you that if you have any financial or other interest with a topic where you are editing you are expected to disclose it. Failure to disclose such interests can result in being blocked.
We have specific criteria for adding material. I don't have time for a lengthy explanation, so I am just going advise you: it would be best that you avoid any editing connected with Earthquake Warning Labs. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:22, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

## personal talk

Please post that sort of thing at my personal talk page. In fact, it would be kindly of you to move it there. Article talk is for article improvement discussion. Thanks NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:01, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Sure. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:03, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

## Re: Redundant is good

On special:diff/908165593, you may be interested in User_talk:Citation_bot#"Removed_URL_that_duplicated_unique_identifier". Nemo 19:19, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Indeed. I noticed that, but have been too jammed with other stuff to give it any attention (yet). Thanks for the reminder. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:06, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

## Delete Talk:IPCC Fifth Assessment Report/citation?

Don't want to do it myself as there might be information there you would like to be kept. Femke Nijsse (talk) 19:00, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes, let me take care of that, and the others, as some replacement text is needed. Also, the new section isn't quite all there yet. (Which I am working on.) ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:36, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
(A) Why would we delete, as opposed to archive, the talk page?
(B) Propose J. Johnson add his name to WP:WikiProject_Climate_change/Participants
(C) Propose the IPCC citation pages migrate to an WP:Advice page at the project
NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:03, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
A: Because it's a little tricky archiving a subpage? Or: once then newpage is finished those citations will be mainly just junk, with extremely little purpose, and likely to confuse anyone that stumbles across them? Well, I will give that some thought when I get to that point.
B: I'm not that keen on getting involved in that area. Too much work to do else where.
C: No! The IPCC citation pages are specific to IPCC reports. What we probably should have is a note on the project page advising that there are special provisions for citing IPCC, and pointing. But the IPCC citation page is still under construction, and I think not yet ready to be advertised. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:47, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
I must be confused, but that's normal. Great, when the new whatever is ready we can do something sensible with the other antiquated doohickie. In lieu of simply deleting (see "what links here") another approach is to add Template:Historic and cross reference to the current thing.
On the bigger issue, I'm not ready to embrace Wikipedia-wide IPCC citation standards. Options, sure. Standards on certain pages where there's a real issue, after discussion, sure. Site-wide, no. But I imagine we'll have this discussion when the new thing you're working on is ready. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:16, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
I consider the "antiquated doohickie" model to be an exploratory but failed approach, of hardly even historical interest, and the several Talk subpages not the proper location. Don't forget that even if that material is simply deleted it is still retained in the history.
I don't know what you mean by "embrace", but it might be noted that the requirement for citation consistency applies only at the level of each article. A useful method of IPCC citation should certainly be available "Wikipedia-wide". Now if the editors at some article really wanted to follow the IPCC's preferred citation format more closely – well, they are free to knock themselves out. But on one of our most prominent articles, where the "Wild West style" has made such a hash of citation, I think we should endeavor to do better. If the resulting model is useful "Wikipedia-wide", then so much the better. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:48, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

## FYI

Just in case... you may know of part of my harv use and harv comments but not all. Just in case you think about the part you know about and wonder if I'm working against harv or trying tactics to keep using "not-harv".... just in case any of that is going on..... then FYI the rest of my harv use and comments you may not know about is both using it and telling others about the work being done on IPCC protocols. So..... just in case you get to wondering what my "strategy" is, its simply to have a full transparent consensus to make everything not just work but BE FRIGGIN FUN. What happened to fun, JJ? Your temper does not make this fun and makes me fear disagreement with you. So.... if you get to wondering what "angle" I'm shooting for, please review my last weeks' contribs before drawing any conclusions. Thanks. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:44, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

## Snipping flags

You asked me on my talk page why I'm snipping flags. On many ship article pages, the ship info box includes an "identification" field which often is used to provide a ship's radio and signal flag call sign, and often includes the International Code of Signals flags for those letters. For 19th-century ships, those flags are an anachronism. Your graphic of the 1857-1900 Commercial Code flags is an excellent source for the 19th-century flags used for ships in those days, so I'm snipping the flags so that they can appear as separate files like the modern ICS flags do. I'm using the images on some of the older ships I am doing histories for - see for example, USFC Fish Hawk and USFC Grampus. It's not perfect, but I hope it will get Wikipedians started on creating separate files for these older flags to go along with the modern ones. I hope I got the attribution, etc., right per the license and your wishes.Mdnavman (talk) 21:23, 23 September 2019 (UTC)mdnavman

Why would you consider use of the modern flags anachronistic? The flags themselves (distinct from their use) are (as far as I can see) essentially the same, the ICS having incorporated the then existing flags.
As to the licensing/permissions, it is probably not a good idea to copy my permissions text, as that is confusing. (Are you saying that I have said it is okay to use your file??) It is probably sufficient to cite the file you used as a source, and then you grant permission to use your derivative image.
Some other points. It is generally preferable to put these images on WikiCommons; eventually your image will probably get moved there. Also, filename suffixes – such as ".png" – are preferably not capitalized. Whether on WP or Commons, there is a way to "move" (rename) files. Off-hand I don't recall just how, I think you have to add a template requesting the move. And you should specify suitable categories to aid others in finding your image. But then, as I have said, consider using the existing images. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:10, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

## Second person

Some day I may do a greatest hits of your use of the second person, and I believe the picture painted will be "needlessly petulantly childishly personalizing". It's so unnecessary and so unpleasant. Please revisit WP:ARBCC#Purpose of Wikipedia, which is enforceable at [{WP:AE]]. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:09, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

## Revert on Loma Prieta earthquake

Hi, why does the template link to earthquake magnitudes, rather than moment magnitude scale? I think that each Magnitude scale symbol should directly link to the corresponding scale's article, don't you? The earthquake magnitudes article doesn't show the symbols or description of each Magnitude at the top of the article, allowing for quick access for readers, so I think the specific article is more appropriate. Mistakefinder (talk) 13:29, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

By "earthquake magnitudes" you presumably mean the Seismic magnitude scales (SMS) article, which is what the {{m}} template links to. (E.g.: Mw.) More precisely, each scale handled by the template links to the specific section of that article that describes that scale. Indeed, the rationale for writing SMS is to provide both an overview of the concept of "earthquake magnitude scale", and a brief description suitable for the general reader of each scale covered.
As to having each scale "directly link to the corresponding scale's article", no, I don't think so. A key problem with that is there are only five such articles, of quality that ranges down to wretched, and all with intimidating doses of ${\displaystyle Math}$ , like ${\displaystyle M=\lg \left({\frac {A}{T}}\right)_{\text{max}}+\sigma (\Delta )\,}$ . These are insufficient for handling the 30 some scales used on Wikipedia, some of which are not notable enough for an article. Even in the five cases where there is a specific article I believe the description provided at SMS is more suitable for most readers. And in those five cases there is a "main article" link for those that want to go deeper.
I don't know what you mean by "The earthquake magnitudes article doesn't show the symbols or description of each Magnitude at the top of the article....". Of course not. Why should they? The links from {M} are not to the top of the article, but to specific sections, where the labels typically used for each scale are shown. In bold, no less.
One of the purposes of the {{m}} template is to relieve editors of the task of searching out specific magnitude scale articles to link to (which largely do not exist), and to provide a simple-to-use and uniform system of wikilinks for "earthquake" (seismic) magnitude scales. Explicit links are no longer needed, and not useful. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:06, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

## A cup of coffee for you!

 The documentation you made at Wikipedia:IPCC citation/AR5 provides solid credibility to Wikipedia's content and would not be intuitive at all for any beginner to sort. By you putting this here you greatly improved the way Wikipedia presents this content. Blue Rasberry (talk) 00:06, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
Thank you! I am pleased that my efforts (still incomplete) are helpful. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 18:55, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

## Clarification of opinion

Hello,

I'm posting this here to make sure the renaming discussion of our article about the technical general definition of climate change remains on topic. Feel free to move this to a separate heading in our article about human-caused climate warming if you prefer this to be on a talk page. You indicated that you see climate change and global warming as two separate topics. Would I be correct in assuming that you make the following distinction:

• human-caused climate change (or whatever title): summary of the three IPCC working group reports together (as is now discussion under global warming)
• global warming (or whatever title): scope similar to chapter 2 (Observations: Atmosphere and Surface) of the IPCC WGI report, with some additions from chapters 5, 7, 8 and 9?

I've been contemplating the same. The reason I have not persued is, is that instrumental temperature record basically covers global warming. Femke Nijsse (talk) 07:10, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

(P.S. you also suggested that climate change migth have to redirect to effects of global warming. I think that many people are more interested in reading about the political issue of climate change, including the politics, denial machinerie and mitigation as now discussion on global warming) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Femkemilene (talkcontribs)

Perhaps we are making very similar distinctions, but I wouldn't express it the way you have. I'm still pondering this.
Re "the political issue of climate change": are you referring to the effort to deny the existence, cause, etc., of global warming? Or (and?) the political response ("climate crisis", Gerda, etc.) to the effects of climate change? ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:04, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the response. When I say 'political issue', I mean everything we now discuss under global warming#responses and global warming#society and culture. I assume you meant Greta, not Gerda? . I'll await your pondering :). Femke Nijsse (talk) 21:20, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
Oops! Of course I meant Greta. Gerda is nice, but nothing to do with CC.
Your link is broken, but undoubtedly you meant global warming#Society and culture (which includes "Political response"). All that I see as part of the broader CC topic. "Global warming" – which I see as a distinct and narrower topic – has its own political aspects, which includes the supplantation of that term with the more benign, more diffuse "climate change". Eventually I may write up something on this, but other work is also needed. ("Had we world enough, and time ....") ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:58, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
In some discussions (maybe in the climate crisis article?) there has been the suggestion we make an entire article about the different semi-synonyms of modern climate change: climate change/global warming/global heating/climate crisis. If you want to work on that as well, that would be great. There is ample scientific literature about the motivations to use the various terms. I've read three scientific papers in detail about what effect the framing has. In User:Femkemilene/sandbox#Background I summarized this incomplete reading of literature. Note that U.S. Republicans are more worried about climate change, so that for them it is not more benign. As somebody who grew up in a house below sea level, global warming also doens't invoke as strong an emotion with me than the more-encompassing climate change. Femke Nijsse (talk) 06:45, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) When I started climate crisis I was hoping to define framing as the key element of the article's scope. Expanding it to include other terms sounds great to me. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 07:56, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
Femke:
U.S. Republicans are not "more worried about climate change, so that for them it is not more benign." When "global warming" started catching air in the mass media (the 1980s?) the fossil fuel industry got worried not about GW itself, but the public's response to the term, and started trying to frame the issue. This is where they started pushing for the term "climate change". It was not simply that it was less frightening to the public; it diluted the scientific message (and gave industry latitude to deny) that there was a definite trend, that it was global, and definitely warming. By dropping "anthropogenic" – as in "AGW" – they could also dance around causation. The effect of this is seen in one of the studies you refer to in your Background, that Republicans are more likely to "believe in" CC than GW: because there are more ways of adjusting that term to certain beliefs. (E.g.: "Of course climate is changing – it does that all the time.") And when (despite industry's best efforts) people are concerned, I suspect the difference between Democrats and Republicans is not so much what they are concerned about, but the term used to describe that "what".
In your Background you state "I think getting politics involved is not fruitful here." Sorry, but politics is involved, and the choice of these terms is political.
You also suggest we should "completely disregard the framing of this single party in a single country." You overlook that this "single country" is currently one of biggest contributors of CO2, is responsible for a greater share of legacy CO2, and has announced it is pulling out of the Paris Agreement. You also are ignoring that this single country is the primary source and incubator of AGW denialism. (Unsurprisingly, as the bulk of the wealth derived from extraction of fossil fuels, or dependent on the use of such fuels, is owned by citizens of this single country.) The framing of this issue in the softer, non-urgent form of "climate change" in this single country is a large part of why we did not curb global warming when we could.
Getting back to the core issue of distinguishing GW and CC: I acknowledge that the terms are often conflated. However, they are not synonymous, and they can be distinguished. "Global warming" is the specific phenomenon of an increase in the heat added to the Earth's climate system, and is measurable (albeit with a great deal of trouble); it is a scientific fact. It is the change in the climate system that drives all the other changes. However, "global warming" encompasses more than the instrumental temperature record. It has a cause (primarily anthropogenic CO2 emissions, also measurable), and tangible effects (such as sea-level rise, extreme weather, habit shift, etc.), often lumped together as "climate change" (or the effects thereof). Both "global warming" and "climate change" have a political aspect (as mentioned above, different from the political responses to climate change), and deprecation of "global warming" is itself political. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:21, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
Dave souza. Hi, Dave. I have been thinking we should have a chat sometime to compare notes re "GW". Until then, I wonder if you might care to comment on my previous paragraph re GW/CC. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:29, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification. The sandbox analysis is still in draft phase, I was planning to adjust that analysis not only with more reading of literature, but also a more nuanced commentary from my side and your comments are useful for that (don't fully agree, but that is for a later phase). Femke Nijsse (talk) 22:27, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
(talk page stalker)@JJ. correction... the technical narrow definition of GW does not include, for example, Ocean heat content. Rather, defined narrowly, GW is about rising mean Global surface temperature. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:18, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
If we want to decidate a page to global warming in its narrow definition, something like post-industrial temperature rise would work better? It needs something temporal or causal and the word rise. Femke Nijsse (talk) 05:56, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
Are we talking (general concept) or (anthropogenic)? I favor the former. Better, in my view, to restrain the urge to create yet another article when we could improve the stub Global surface temperature with the addition of sections #Global warming and #Global cooling. This structure (putting sections under that title) will do as much to convey the narrow definition as any words we write in the text. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 07:49, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
"Warming" is more succinct, and more familiar, than "temperature rise". And "post-industrial" could mean "after the industrial phase of human civilization", but probably means "post-Industrial Revolution onset". And perhaps it should be specified we're not talking about the US or GB specifically, but about global warming.
At any rate, "global warming" is a key search term, and even if it is getting eclipsed by "climate change" it still has a historical significance. To bury it as a section in "Global surface temperature" – which is only one aspect of global warming – carries an odor of a whitewash, a continuation of industry's reframing.
"Better, in my view, to restrain the urge to create yet another article says the guy that just recently created Global surface temperature, Ecological grief, and 2019 UN Climate Action Summit. I have not suggested creating any new articles. Indeed, if the current Climate change article had some of its recent trimming restored, and augmented with about half of the current Global warming article, the remainder of GW could cover what that term originally applied to, and be distinct from "climate change" more generally. No new articles needed. But apparently that is not The Plan. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:22, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Climate change, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mantle (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:20, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Hey, everyone! A passing thought, don't know if it would work, but: if "climate change" was a disambiguation page, would all those loose and not well-considered links to Climate change then get notifications like this one? That might be one way to get all those links more finely resolved. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:33, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
Yes. With roughly 4500 links to climate change, maybe one link is added a day approximately. Having a dab would solve the problem mostly for new additions, but not effectively for all the existing links. If there is an agreement on modern climate change being the primary topic for climate change, then per WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT we'd have to directly point towards that page. The logic behind that would be that editors won't have to come back to their edits all the time. In the case we do decide to go for a dab page, I think we can also figure out (dunno how), which of the two links people click more often. So if that's 90% modern climate change, we know even more certain that this is the primary topic and we should directly point towards that page. Femke Nijsse (talk) 21:23, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
Collapsing some unuseful snarkiness
THANK YOU JJ for bringing a new constructive idea... since I never link an article without reading it, I never knew that feature existed. Thanks for the education!
If they had done this in 2002 when CC was first created it would have prevented all those bad links. With 70-90% of incoming links pointing at the wrong article, the fastest way to "fix" them en masse is pointing "climate change" at the article about human climate system warming, whatever that article is called (currently global warming).
If we deploy the DAB now, it will cut down on WP:EGGS but not eliminate them. That's because the careless people who link things without reading them are also the folks most likely to ignore the DAB message.
And why would they be trying to do that in the first place? Simple.
The pending RM for climate change is predicated on the assertion that the PRIMARYTOPIC-(By use) for "climate change" is human climate system warming now reported as our article "global warming". QUESTION - Do you dispute that assertion? If you have already answered that question I apologize for missing it and would be happy to just have a diff to follow. If not, please tell us if you agree or disagree with this assertion now. Thanks NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:05, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
I disagree with your assertion, but this is not the place to discuss it. I also disagree with your assertion that "careless people who link things without reading them are also the folks most likely to ignore the DAB message." Your subtle insult is noted. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:34, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the quick 'no', I'll reference the question and answer and ask for reasoning at the RM thread. Re your perception of insult, see MOS:Internal links, Beware of linking to an article without first confirming that it is helpful in context; the fact that its title matches the concept you wish to link to does not guarantee that it deals with the desired topic at all. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:41, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
Totally irrelevant to the question I raised, and not furthering any useful discussion. As you have nothing useful to add kindly busy yourself somewhere else. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:29, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
If I missed answering a question then my apologies! I did not mean to practice WP:DISRUPTSIGNS and would be happy to try if offered another chance... what's the question I missed? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:36, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
Your comments being rather non-collegial, perhaps you would consider striking them? ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:55, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
I'll be glad too, once I understand the problem. Are we talking about my characterizing linking without know the topic or scope of an article as "careless"? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 02:26, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
Yes. Quite uncalled for, and contributing nothing positive to this discussion. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:10, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for specifying the what. I'm aware that you linked a DAB intentionally in a skillful demonstration for the benefit of F and myself in this thread. It was wonderful experiential education! I was making a generalized characterization about hypothetical other people. Why did you find that "insulting" or "quite uncalled for" or "uncollegial" in the discussion between us? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:37, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
Bullshit. But a nice demonstration of snarkiness. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:25, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

## Belt and suspenders

Earlier today I mangled an attempt to ping you, and I may have also botched my attempt to fix the error. So just in case, I have posted two questions for you in this part of the thread. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:22, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

I'll try to get to that tomorrow, as I'm out of time for today. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:57, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
Thanks! 'til then. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 02:27, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

## Earthquake prediction

Good day. I understood why you reverted my edit and I apprehend your point. Just wanted to ask you to fix the citation error another way, but now I see that you already did it. Thank you for your notice and correction anyway. Ur frnd (talk) 22:50, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm glad you're okay with that. :-) Do note that the {{citation}} and {{cite xxx}} templates work differently, so you should avoid changing them. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:52, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

I appreciated your objection to my extended entry for Saul Alinksy which, as I acknowledged, did need revision.

As I noted: "Earlier draft raised objection of NPOV [which I took as referring to Not Politically Objective]. In emphasising from the outset the controversy that has continued to highlight Saul Alinsky's contribution to community organizing, wording was poorly chosen and was open to misinterpretation. This has been corrected. Reference in the conclusion has also been made to Alinsky as a source of inspiration for the occupy, and climate-action, movements."

Changes were made which I thought addressed the issue, but clearly not. Could you please explain. Thanks. ManfredHugh

Okay, thanks I see you earlier comments and will address them. ManfredHugh

as I said at Talk:Saul Alinsky, as a new and inexperienced user there are a number matters you need to get up to speed on. First and foremost: on Talk pages – but not articles! – you should "sign" your comments with the famed "four tildes": "~~~~".
Note also that you don't have create you new section every time you comment in an existing section. Just scroll down to the pertinent section and hit the edit tab.
That you mistook "NPOV" as "Not Politically Objective" is amusing, as when you have been around here a long while you just know it means "Neutral Point Of View", and how could it be anything else??? :-) Do note that when editors are bandying about a lot of capitalized acronyms they're usually references to some Wikipediaism, such as policies, standards, or guidelines. Most properly they should be prefixed with "WP:", and might even be wiki-linked so you can jump to the referenced content. E.g.: WP:NPOV. Being new, you should check any of this acronyms you encounter. And as I suggested before: explore the links that have been provided on your Talk page.
As to particular edits: I don't have time to explain all this to you; you really should explore the basics as suggested. I will comment on one edit: do you understand how changing "honors" to "posthumous notoriety" is non-neutral? More generally, some of your deletions seem biased. I will point out that having strong views on a topic tends to make it harder to see a "proper" non-NPOV balance. In such cases it is often better to edit other topics.
Feel free to ask here if have questions about coming up to speed. But also note that discussion of an article's content should generally be on that article's talk page. And remember the tildes! ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:58, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. I responded (hopefully correctly) on the Saul Alinsky Talk Page. Failed to sign with the four tildes. Do I do it so?:ManfredHugh (talk) 02:47, 21 November 2019 (UTC)ManfredHugh --think I got it.

## Your reversion of my edit to "1976 Tangshan earthquake"

Greetings and felicitations. I noticed that you reverted my edit to the article 1976 Tangshan earthquake with the reason "I demur: the map referred to is definitely /below/." I made the change as a compromise with MOS:IM—the image appears at the top of the section in mobile browser windows (I just checked on my phone), making the direction "below" nonsensical in those cases. In light of that, may I make the change again? —DocWatson42 (talk) 03:19, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Sure. (And thanks for asking.) I checked on en.m.wikipedia.org and the map was still "below". But this isn't a real phone, so what can I say? Perhaps: that map actually belongs to the following section, so phones displaying above the reference text would suggest a problem somewhere. But I'm not inclined to fix that one, so let's just slog on as we were. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:46, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
I finally got around to this (my apologies for taking so long), and made this change. And as for asking, I'm not that experienced in the Wikipedia dispute resolution process, but I know that that is the first step. —DocWatson42 (talk) 04:12, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
No problem on the wait – I've had plenty else to do. And no problem with your recent edit, I think that will work. I have wondered if "intensity map" might be better as "isoseismal map", but reckoned that would be confusing. Or perhaps name the map directly? I don't know. Let me know if you have any thoughts on that. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:05, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

## Removal of TemplateData due to JSON error

Hi there J. Johnson. I noticed you removed the TemplateData from Template:Infobox earthquake/doc due to an unspecified "Syntax error in JSON". However, it appears the issue is now resolved as I repopulated the TemplateData at the template's documentation and merged it with the previous TemplateData (as only when I added it did I notice your unsigned comment). Please let me know if there are any other Templates where you encountered this error so that I can restore the TemplateData? comrade waddie96 ★ (talk) 17:21, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

I don't recall any other cases. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:34, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

## Happy Holidays

 Thank you for continuing to make Wikipedia the greatest project in the world. I hope you have an excellent holiday season. Lightburst (talk) 23:59, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

## Garlock fault

Hi. Here, I've reverted your removal of my recent addition to the Garlock Fault article, based on WP:PSTS. This was just a drive-by addition, though, and may not fit smoothly with the overall tone of that article; feel free to improve it as needed. I do tend towards over-reliance on primary sources and I did try to look at the Science (journal) article. However, I found that a subscription is needed to access that article online and I'm not a subscriber. Cheers. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 11:56, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

News sites generally make terrible secondary sources for scientific stories like this one. If a review paper comes along, then that would be great, but for now a citation to the original paper would be better. Mikenorton (talk) 12:54, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
At WP:SECONDARY it says (original emphasis): "A secondary source provides an author's own thinking based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains an author's analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources." The reason that news sites (as Mike says) "make terrible secondary sources" is because they generally only echo tidbits (perhaps with some explanation, and the reporter's implicit use of a reliable source), but without any analysis, etc. And quite often misinterpret an event, or its significance, or leave off key caveats. So, yes, best to cite the original source.
Re Garlock Fault: I haven't added that source because the article really needs a substantial expansion. At the present rate I hope to get to it sometime this coming summer. I just hope it doesn't pop before then! :-] ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:48, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
I've contemplated this situation a number of times over the course of my time working with journal sources and I've learned that in this domain (earthquakes and geology) it's a necessity to "violate" WP:PRIMARY. I'm pretty certain that there are other domains (on WP) that also face this dilemma, but consider that without citing these sources directly, our DYK's, good articles, and featured content would arguably be non-existent. Dawnseeker2000 01:33, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
Yes, I also have contemplated on this several times. It seems to me the injunction to use secondary sources could use some refinement, as some editors take that strictly (else "violation"!), despite the language further down that primary sources may be used ("but only with care"). And there seems to be occasional confusion between secondary sources (with analysis, etc.) and second-hand sources, that simply parrot another source. I think primary scientific sources should be quite acceptable, given certain caveats (such as not controverted by other reports, etc.). Whether a report is acceptable is somewhat a matter of editor evaluation, which is a function of an editor's familiarity of a subject field. But my contemplations have yet to reach a point I could suggest any modifications of WP:PSTS. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:36, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

## Oh, I didn't realize...

Until I made that second edit that you had probably meant to undo Headbomb's change on Hilna Slump. Sorry about that! Dawnseeker2000 03:31, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

No problem! And I reckon you'd understand what I was doing. But it looks like I need to have a talk with Headbomb. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:28, 8 January 2020 (UTC)