|
|
A handy collection of useful links.
The canonical forms for citing the IPCC documents are at:
Ask if you have questions or need assistance.
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)
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) |
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) |
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)
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) |
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)
|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....|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)
Thanks a lot for your guidance and reminders on ArbCom case! PavelShk ( talk) 23:00, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
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)
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. SQL Query me! 23:08, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
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)
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)
Your removal of an internal link at Climate change had the edit comment "Not particularly notable, seems more of a promotional nature" and your removal of the internal link at Global warming had the edit comment "Removing link spamming". However, even a cursory glance at Warming stripes and a basic Google search will show that dozens of reliable news references recognize the importance of a data visualization tool that makes the data behind global warming intuitively understandable to non-scientists. It is thus "particularly notable" (doesn't just "seem" so), and it's hard to imagine how describing data visualization can be "promotional". Further, your attempt ( diff) at the Administrator's Notice Board to get someone else to investigate (!), was closed down after a few hours ( diff) with the comment "Wrong venue. Take this to the article talk page, please" — which you have not done. There might be some room for reasoned discussion about the external links in the article, but you haven't even done that. Please describe, specifically, the basis for your opinions and actions, or I will replace the links. — RCraig09 ( talk) 06:02, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
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 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)
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 ( talk • contribs) 16:19, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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
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)
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)
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.
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 , like . 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.
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.
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) |
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:
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 ( talk • contribs)
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)
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".
I think getting politics involved is not fruitful here." Sorry, but politics is involved, and the choice of these terms is political.
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.
Better, in my view, to restrain the urge to create yet another articlesays 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)
Collapsing some unuseful snarkiness
|
---|
|
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)
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 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
@ J. Johnson: 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.
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)
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)
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) |
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)
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.
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)
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)
Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly. |
You've been around long enough to know to WP:Assume Good Faith, instead of accusing new users of being an activist. Only believing that politics should be covered more extensively doesn't have to be activist. Your comments about starting a blog are not really civil. And a (somewhat old) second reason for a trout: further escalating the disagreement between you and RCraig09 using the word 'bitching'. CC is under DS and you should know better by now. Femke Nijsse ( talk) 09:10, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
what is wrong [...]"), but not liking the explanation given, s/he wants to debate it. I begin to regret having tried to be of assistance. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) ( talk) 23:37, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
unsuitable to edit here"; my objection is not to what he has tried to do, or even how, but where. I have been explicit about that; the problem of interpretation seems to be yours. For that, and for failing to assume my good faith, I think you ought to remove this "trout", and self-trout yourself for over-reacting. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) ( talk) 21:01, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
The file File:Olympic-Wallowa Lineament.png has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
unused, low-res, no obvious use
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}}
notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the file's talk page.
Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}}
will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. In particular, the
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
files for discussion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot ( talk) 01:03, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. — MarkH21 talk 04:35, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
For the wonderfully crafted edsums that have been highlighted at ANI, and your patience there. Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 10:51, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.
qedk (
t 心
c) 22:02, 25 March 2020 (UTC)Category:M ?, which you created, has been nominated for renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 06:52, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
I have been requested to comment regarding this proposed rename of Template:M. I hereby do so, albeit reluctantly.
This proposal is ill-advised. It is made and supported by editors not familiar with the topic area generally, not familiar with use of the symbol "M" in that topic area, and not familiar with the purpose and use of this template. This proposal arises from this unfamilarity, and is based on a superficial consideration of a template naming guideline, where the supposed lack of clarity complained of is not due to the name, and therefore not properly fixed by a rename.
Particular points:
{{
M|w}}
") with the displayed text ("Mw ") makes the wikitext clearer to read, whereas having to use a longer, roundabout way of getting "M" only makes Wikipedia harder to learn.this template introduces" is not (as bibliomaniac15 states) "
opaque", but is (per Crouch's criterion) "
recognizable to anyone who knows what it is". For all practical purposes everyone that works with (or merely reads about) earthquakes recognizes "M" as a measure of earthquake "size". (Even those people that do not understand the difference between magnitude and intensity.) For all of the specific variant forms (such as Mfa), which are less familiar and even obscure, there is an option to wikilink directly to specific text (at Seismic magnitude scales) that describes the specific scale (or concept) referred to. But the general concept of " M" is obscure or confusing only to those who are entirely unfamiliar with earthquakes, and the specific labels and categories implement correspond as closely as possible with the "system" used by seismologists..
per moment magnitude scale, the name of the specific scale being used", shows an appalling lack of understanding of magnitude scales. The moment magnitude scale is one specific magnitude scale, whereas this template is used to specify and represent over thirty distinct scales and related concepts. The suggestion that a Template:MMS would be a "
very natural" shortcut is grotesque, as "MMS" is not actually an abbreviation for moment magnitude scale, let alone for magnitude scales collectively.
Again: this proposal is ill-advised, as demonstrated. It should be rejected. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) ( talk) 21:19, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
Articles needing specification of an EQ magnitude scale.
Articles needing verification of an EQ magnitude or magnitude scale.
Articles specifying an EQ magnitude or scale as "Richter".
I would remind the closer that discussions such as this are supposed to be resolved not on votes, but arguments. The original argument for this move was solely "clarify name
" (subsequently referenced to
WP:TMPG). I have presented nine arguments against, starting with there being no evidence of any lack of clarity (other than the self-declarations by editors with neither experience with this template nor familiarity with the subject), and that the WP:TPMG is a guideline, not a requirement. The efficacy of these arguments is shown in Netoholic's raising a new argument, that this template should not "lay exclusive claim to the symbol "M".
"
That the symbol "M" (including "m") is used in various ways and thus may need disambiguation is quite beside the point, as that is a main space issue. (And more generally, templates are not disambiguated.) The issue Netoholic would raise is more properly whether "M" in template space can be claimed for a specific use. I say: why not? Are there any other uses of M/m for which a better claim could be made? No such claim has been made, whereas the handling of "M" as earthquake magnitude does require special handling. And as I have already explained, any name other than {{ M}} is sub-optimal. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) ( talk) 05:43, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
If the crowd insists that the template be renamed (poor as that would be) I suggest that the least bad alternative is {{ Meq}}. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) ( talk) 04:07, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
Template:Subdash has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. ― Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 05:38, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
You have added a short cite to "Li 2011" but no such source is listed in the bibliography. Can you please add? Thanks, Renata ( talk) 06:03, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
Template:Earthquake energy class has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Jonesey95 ( talk) 06:01, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
Template:Authorid has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Trappist the monk ( talk) 18:27, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
Category:M xxx has been nominated for speedy renaming to Category:Articles using M test magnitude scale. — andrybak ( talk) 21:23, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
|
|
A handy collection of useful links.
The canonical forms for citing the IPCC documents are at:
Ask if you have questions or need assistance.
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)
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) |
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) |
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)
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) |
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)
|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....|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)
Thanks a lot for your guidance and reminders on ArbCom case! PavelShk ( talk) 23:00, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
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)
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. SQL Query me! 23:08, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
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)
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)
Your removal of an internal link at Climate change had the edit comment "Not particularly notable, seems more of a promotional nature" and your removal of the internal link at Global warming had the edit comment "Removing link spamming". However, even a cursory glance at Warming stripes and a basic Google search will show that dozens of reliable news references recognize the importance of a data visualization tool that makes the data behind global warming intuitively understandable to non-scientists. It is thus "particularly notable" (doesn't just "seem" so), and it's hard to imagine how describing data visualization can be "promotional". Further, your attempt ( diff) at the Administrator's Notice Board to get someone else to investigate (!), was closed down after a few hours ( diff) with the comment "Wrong venue. Take this to the article talk page, please" — which you have not done. There might be some room for reasoned discussion about the external links in the article, but you haven't even done that. Please describe, specifically, the basis for your opinions and actions, or I will replace the links. — RCraig09 ( talk) 06:02, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
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 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)
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 ( talk • contribs) 16:19, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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
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)
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)
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.
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 , like . 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.
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.
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) |
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:
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 ( talk • contribs)
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)
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".
I think getting politics involved is not fruitful here." Sorry, but politics is involved, and the choice of these terms is political.
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.
Better, in my view, to restrain the urge to create yet another articlesays 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)
Collapsing some unuseful snarkiness
|
---|
|
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)
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 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
@ J. Johnson: 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.
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)
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)
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) |
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)
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.
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)
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)
Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly. |
You've been around long enough to know to WP:Assume Good Faith, instead of accusing new users of being an activist. Only believing that politics should be covered more extensively doesn't have to be activist. Your comments about starting a blog are not really civil. And a (somewhat old) second reason for a trout: further escalating the disagreement between you and RCraig09 using the word 'bitching'. CC is under DS and you should know better by now. Femke Nijsse ( talk) 09:10, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
what is wrong [...]"), but not liking the explanation given, s/he wants to debate it. I begin to regret having tried to be of assistance. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) ( talk) 23:37, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
unsuitable to edit here"; my objection is not to what he has tried to do, or even how, but where. I have been explicit about that; the problem of interpretation seems to be yours. For that, and for failing to assume my good faith, I think you ought to remove this "trout", and self-trout yourself for over-reacting. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) ( talk) 21:01, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
The file File:Olympic-Wallowa Lineament.png has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
unused, low-res, no obvious use
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}}
notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the file's talk page.
Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}}
will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. In particular, the
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
files for discussion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot ( talk) 01:03, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. — MarkH21 talk 04:35, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
For the wonderfully crafted edsums that have been highlighted at ANI, and your patience there. Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 10:51, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.
qedk (
t 心
c) 22:02, 25 March 2020 (UTC)Category:M ?, which you created, has been nominated for renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 06:52, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
I have been requested to comment regarding this proposed rename of Template:M. I hereby do so, albeit reluctantly.
This proposal is ill-advised. It is made and supported by editors not familiar with the topic area generally, not familiar with use of the symbol "M" in that topic area, and not familiar with the purpose and use of this template. This proposal arises from this unfamilarity, and is based on a superficial consideration of a template naming guideline, where the supposed lack of clarity complained of is not due to the name, and therefore not properly fixed by a rename.
Particular points:
{{
M|w}}
") with the displayed text ("Mw ") makes the wikitext clearer to read, whereas having to use a longer, roundabout way of getting "M" only makes Wikipedia harder to learn.this template introduces" is not (as bibliomaniac15 states) "
opaque", but is (per Crouch's criterion) "
recognizable to anyone who knows what it is". For all practical purposes everyone that works with (or merely reads about) earthquakes recognizes "M" as a measure of earthquake "size". (Even those people that do not understand the difference between magnitude and intensity.) For all of the specific variant forms (such as Mfa), which are less familiar and even obscure, there is an option to wikilink directly to specific text (at Seismic magnitude scales) that describes the specific scale (or concept) referred to. But the general concept of " M" is obscure or confusing only to those who are entirely unfamiliar with earthquakes, and the specific labels and categories implement correspond as closely as possible with the "system" used by seismologists..
per moment magnitude scale, the name of the specific scale being used", shows an appalling lack of understanding of magnitude scales. The moment magnitude scale is one specific magnitude scale, whereas this template is used to specify and represent over thirty distinct scales and related concepts. The suggestion that a Template:MMS would be a "
very natural" shortcut is grotesque, as "MMS" is not actually an abbreviation for moment magnitude scale, let alone for magnitude scales collectively.
Again: this proposal is ill-advised, as demonstrated. It should be rejected. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) ( talk) 21:19, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
Articles needing specification of an EQ magnitude scale.
Articles needing verification of an EQ magnitude or magnitude scale.
Articles specifying an EQ magnitude or scale as "Richter".
I would remind the closer that discussions such as this are supposed to be resolved not on votes, but arguments. The original argument for this move was solely "clarify name
" (subsequently referenced to
WP:TMPG). I have presented nine arguments against, starting with there being no evidence of any lack of clarity (other than the self-declarations by editors with neither experience with this template nor familiarity with the subject), and that the WP:TPMG is a guideline, not a requirement. The efficacy of these arguments is shown in Netoholic's raising a new argument, that this template should not "lay exclusive claim to the symbol "M".
"
That the symbol "M" (including "m") is used in various ways and thus may need disambiguation is quite beside the point, as that is a main space issue. (And more generally, templates are not disambiguated.) The issue Netoholic would raise is more properly whether "M" in template space can be claimed for a specific use. I say: why not? Are there any other uses of M/m for which a better claim could be made? No such claim has been made, whereas the handling of "M" as earthquake magnitude does require special handling. And as I have already explained, any name other than {{ M}} is sub-optimal. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) ( talk) 05:43, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
If the crowd insists that the template be renamed (poor as that would be) I suggest that the least bad alternative is {{ Meq}}. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) ( talk) 04:07, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
Template:Subdash has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. ― Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 05:38, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
You have added a short cite to "Li 2011" but no such source is listed in the bibliography. Can you please add? Thanks, Renata ( talk) 06:03, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
Template:Earthquake energy class has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Jonesey95 ( talk) 06:01, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
Template:Authorid has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Trappist the monk ( talk) 18:27, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
Category:M xxx has been nominated for speedy renaming to Category:Articles using M test magnitude scale. — andrybak ( talk) 21:23, 10 October 2022 (UTC)