User:Jc3s5h

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Jc3s5h
en This user is a native speaker of English.
WPanthroponymy.svg This user participates in WikiProject Anthroponymy.
Scale of justice 2.svg
This user is a member of
WikiProject Law.
Nuvola apps emacs.png This user hacks happily with Emacs.

Definition of piracy

Visual definition of piracy

Congress does not know what piracy is, nor do they understand the Internet, freedom of the press, or due process of law.

Verifiability policy sucks

I declare the phrase "third party" in WP:Verifiability to be meaningless, because it is only meaningful in the context of contract law, and has no meaning in a policy about verifiability. Thus I am not bound to obey any portion of said policy that has been contaminated by contact with this rotten phrase. Jc3s5h (talk) 04:30, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Jimbo comment on verifiability

From User talk:Jimbo Wales:

Here is a story for consideration. Recently in the UK, a Member of Parliament was accused of sexual assault. There was a flurry of news stories. Within a few days, the entire case collapsed and his accuser admitted the whole thing was a lie. For a few days, his biography was problematic in the usual way: the accusations took up a huge percentage of the article, so that there were serious undue weight issues. When the case unraveled, a consensus was quickly reached on the talk page that while we should leave the material in his biography for a little while, since some people may not have heard about it at all, that a good case could be made for removing the whole incident entirely, eventually, because as it turns out, it is likely to have had zero impact on his career, life, etc., because basically nothing actually happened. (I reserve judgment on whether removing the information completely will be the right thing in this particular case, but I can see where it could be the right thing to do.)

All of that is editorial judgment as opposed to be transcription monkeys. The transcription monkey view, which virtually no one actually holds of course, once they stop to think about it, would say that editorial judgment is wrong, that the information is verifiable in reliable sources, therefore we must include it.

What's point here? My point is that even if something meets "verifiable" we might not include it... even if it is true. There are also cases where it is possible to find a handful of reliable sources that made a claim that is false and never corrected themselves, even though it has become starkly obvious that the claim is false. It's wrong to say "verifiability, not truth" if it leads people to think that it is ok to not care about truth.

We want verifiability and truth. And relevance. And proper weight. And some other things besides!--Jimbo Wales (talk) 04:52, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

To do

User name meaning

I wanted to choose a random user name. I shuffled a deck of cards, and drew three. They were the jack of clubs, three of spades, and five of hearts.

Subpages

Articles created

  1. Conversion between Julian and Gregorian calendars
  2. Moderator (town official)
  3. High Bailiff (Vermont)

Articles merged

  1. Apostille into Hague Convention Abolishing the Requirement of Legalisation for Foreign Public Documents

Significant changes to articles and templates

  1. New citations, citation format cleanup in Coordinated Universal Time
  2. Provide citations in International Atomic Time, which previously had a {{refimprove}} template.
  3. Jech v. Burch‎
  4. Universal Time (updated description of the main form, UT1, from the late 20th century version to the early 21st century version)
  5. Tropical year which had several reference related templates and a great deal of what looked like original research
  6. {{Zodiac date IAU}} modified 16 September 2012 to agree with a reliable source; previous version was based on an unexplained, uncited calculation that had some bugs.
  7. I added the "Numerical value of year variation" section to the Year article on 7 November 2012.
  8. Julian day. Replaced algorithm that was not supported by a source with one from the 3rd edition of Explanatory Supplement to the Astronomical Almanac and tested against a similar algorithm from SOFA (astronomy). (March 2013)

Significant citation cleanup

  1. Leap year (Cleaned up citations again May 2012. First citation introduced in this edit by Johnleemk.)
  2. Metre
  3. Birth certificate
  4. System time
  5. Certification authority (May 2012)
  6. Universal Time (March 2013)
  7. Daylight saving time. Undo introduction of vcite family of citations in August 2011 without discussion, when cite family was already in use. (July 2013)
  8. Suffix (name). (September 9, 2013)
  9. High visibility clothing. (October 14, 2013).
  10. Historia ecclesiastica gentis Anglorum‎. (December 13, 2013) Made citations link to bibliography. Working with User:Felix Folio Secundus, rescued bibliography entries from 2009.

Citations

Origins & basis of citation templates

I have always wondered what, if any, external style guide the various citation templates were based on. The earliest I have been able to find are

Images created

Images by Jc3s5h
Schematic diagram of differential current switch circuit
Differential current switch circuit. 
Tribrach.
Wild brand tribrach made in 1950s. 
graph
ΔT for the years 1657 to 1984. 
acre, two kinds of football field
Acre overlaid on US and Association football fields, modification of images by DanMS and Xyzzy
Castleton, Vermont Amtrack station
Castleton, Vermont Amtrack station. 

Design goals of Cite book template

Also, there is this thread where User:Gracefool answered a question on that editor's talk page:

As far as I can tell from the history, you seem to be the original contributor of {{Cite book}}. I have heard that originally all the cite xxx family of templates were modeled on APA style. Can you tell me if this is true? Jc3s5h (talk) 18:20, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

That's correct - but we weren't strict about it. Why? ··gracefool 18:17, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Sometimes there are new fields added, and there are disagreements about how to format them. If the goal is to follow APA, then the APA manual should influence the decision. Of course, if the APA manual was only loosely followed, then I guess it is decided by whoever is the most persistent. Thanks for your reply.
More specifically, there is a fairly new template, {{Cite thesis}}. There is disagreement about whether to merge it into either {{Cite journal}} or {{Cite book}}, and whether the title of a PhD thesis should be in italics. --Jc3s5h (talk) 18:49, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Yeah it's not necessarily to follow the APA, so decisions should be judged on their own merits, and decided by discussion as per usual. As for {{cite thesis}}, I've posted its talk page. ··gracefool 23:22, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Citation tools

See Wikipedia:Citation tools.

To create a reference section in a talk page, so that more than one reference section can exist while discussing several examples of citation techniques, use Template:Reflist with the close=1 parameter.

Citation of other Wikimedia projects

See Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia

Guide to guides

Failing example

This version of the article about Barack Obama has many citation templates, and fails. Notice near the bottom of the article some of the template names appear instead of the text that is supposed to be substituted for them.

CITEVAR revisions

The part of "Citing sources" that indicates citation style in an article should not be changed without consensus may be accessed with the shortcut WP:CITEVAR. The revision that put the section in substantially its current form was by Kotinski on 22 September 2011.

Which guideline?

An inconclusive RFC conducted in May and June of 2012 on which guideline should control the format of citations, WP:MOS or WP:CITE, may be found here.

Dates in citations

Tools worth remembering

User:MiszaBot/Archive HowTo

Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser

Wikipedia:Tools#Page_histories

Tool to figure out what revision introduced text.

User:PleaseStand/References segregator

Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/Database Scanner

Help:Diff

User:Ohconfucius/EngvarB

Pages worth remembering

Templates to remember

  • {{subst:SCV|histpurge}} or {{subst:SCV|h}} to signify that revision deletion is necessary

Copyright problem advice from Theleftorium's talk page

I am beginning to pay attention to the Copyright problems page, and I noticed you edit there. I want to point out that the CorenSearchBot seems to have a false positive with Kubrilesque, but the article has other problems, namely conflict of interest and no citation to independent sources to show notability. I have explained the issues at the article talk page, but would like your help with the best way to make a notation at the copyright problems page. Jc3s5h (talk) 23:58, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi. :) If you find a false positive at WP:SCV, just make a small note underneath it such as "No copyright concern: false positive" (it seems User:VernoWhitney has already done this with Kubrilesque, though). Template:SCV is really useful for that. As for the COI and notability issues, those should generally not be noted at WP:SCV. Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard is probably better, or you can just nominate the article at AfD. Regards, Theleftorium (talk) 08:18, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Wiki page terminology

The Wikipedia: Glossary has this to say about the text that is stored in the database and displayed in the edit window:

Wiki markup, wikitext, wiki text, wiki-text, etc.
Code like HTML, but simplified and more convenient, for example '''boldfaced text''' instead of <B>boldfaced text</B>. It is the source code stored in the database and shown in the edit box. Searching by the Wikipedia software is done in the wikitext, as opposed to searching by external major search engines, which is done in the resulting HTML. The size of a page is the size of the wikitext. See also Wikitext, Help:Wiki markup, Wikipedia:How to edit a page, Wikipedia:Guide to layout.

The article Wiki markup describes the concept of a markup language for wikis, without being specific to the Wikimedia Foundation's projects.

The help page Help:Wiki markup describes the language used by MediaWiki.

In all cases, no clear distinction or definition appears that states whether the terms apply only to the markup elements, eg, "==" to begin and end a 2nd level heading, or if the terms also includes the English (or other language) statements that express the information content of the article.

Good article reviews

Categories to check occasionally

Category:CS1 errors: dates

Database scanning








Creative Commons License