Jonathan Lane Studeman
Welcome
edit
|
Discretionary sanctions notification - climate change
editThe Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding Climate change, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.
Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.
This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:42, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
Greetings
editHi Jonathan, it's a great pleasure to have a new person stop by "that article" and discover I can understand them! I may not always agree, but we need more good communicator/thinkers there. Hope you stick around. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:27, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks for the compliment! I've long been an admirer of Wikipedia and am delighted to find a topic I enjoy contributing to. Your comments are always particularly insightful, and I'm learning a lot. Jonathan Lane Studeman (talk) 09:22, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
Since the talk page is wrestling with a lot of high-order stuff, there's a secondary (or maybe lower) level issue you touched on and I thought to ask you to elaborate here since its sort of premature to reopen it there. You made a passing reference to the categories we use to sort out the scientists. Please elaborate. Do you like the current approach or were you suggesting something different? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:00, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
- I see these as the same. Clearly we want a list of notable, peer-reviewed scientists who dissent from the mainstream assessment. But if that were that were all that we want, then we could simply do as Serten suggested and cite a reliable source or two (including the scientist in most cases) saying "this scientist dissents," and put the name on the list.
- The problem is, that would lump together in one list the scientists who claim there's been no significant warming at all with the scientists who merely contend that we can't say with any confidence that future warming will have mostly adverse consequences. Such would make the list fairly useless and, worse, a kind of smear, as if we were saying that all dissenters are essentially the same and that all adhere to the same crazy notions. So, to be fair to scientists and useful to those reading about them, we must categorize and group the scientists according to what element of the mainstream assessment they take issue with.
- For that, we need to break the assessment up into its logical, useful components. I'm saying there are exactly five propositions that fully summarize the mainstream assessment (and I'm saying that many significant reliable sources, including the IPCC, can be cited as breaking the assessment down in this way): 1) the Earth has warmed; 2) we are the cause; 3) warming continues; 4) it will be bad; and 5) we can do something about it. We should dispense with number 5, I think, because although I see it as a scientific issue (we "can"), it simply borders too closely on the policy issue (we "should"), and by dispensing with it we remove the risk of ever crossing that border.
- Those four components/elements/propositions (dissenting from them being the criteria) can then serve as the categories, the sections of the list.
- As for the "current approach," I'm pretty much agreeing with it! I only note that in the lead the "three" currently listed components are actually four. Number 3 includes these two statements: "If greenhouse gas emissions continue the warming will also continue ..." and "...the balance of impacts of global warming become significantly negative at larger values of warming." Those are different things! A scientist who agrees fully with the first may still strongly dispute the second. What I'm really saying is that our page sections need to be adjusted to exactly match the assessment components that are listed in the lead. Jonathan Lane Studeman (talk) 08:53, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
"What I'm really saying is that our page sections need to be adjusted to exactly match the assessment components that are listed in the lead. "
Thanks for being explicit; you said something at article talk that sort of hinted at this. I too think that the subsections for sorting need to match the paragraphs in the lead, and have advocated that in the past (see archives). But as we're trying to figure out how to update the lead from TAR to AR4 talking about the subjections is premature. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 09:55, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
Regardless of !vote thanks for taking time
editWhatever you think of the idea to also require secondary RSs at "List of scientists opposing the mainstream assessment of global warming", thanks for taking time to participate in the poll on that question. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:39, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
renewed interest
editFYI, you may wish to return to this discussion. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:13, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
Talk page thanks
editTHANKS! To be honest, I haven't read your comments yet. I will, probably after a few days when others have also added theirs (hopefully). The THANKS are for taking time to carefully add your thoughts subsection by subsection to facilitate discussion NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:05, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
- My pleasure! Meanwhile, you may be interested in this discussion at the Village pump (idea lab). Jonathan Lane Studeman (talk) 11:11, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
- I started to comment off the cuff and on the sidebar with no clear feelign what I wanted to say, but it gelled so I'll post it. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:20, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
- My pleasure! Meanwhile, you may be interested in this discussion at the Village pump (idea lab). Jonathan Lane Studeman (talk) 11:11, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
Editing news 2020 #4
editRead this in another language • Subscription list for this newsletter
Reply tool
editThe Reply tool has been available as a Beta Feature at the Arabic, Dutch, French and Hungarian Wikipedias since 31 March 2020. The first analysis showed positive results.
- More than 300 editors used the Reply tool at these four Wikipedias. They posted more than 7,400 replies during the study period.
- Of the people who posted a comment with the Reply tool, about 70% of them used the tool multiple times. About 60% of them used it on multiple days.
- Comments from Wikipedia editors are positive. One said, أعتقد أن الأداة تقدم فائدة ملحوظة؛ فهي تختصر الوقت لتقديم رد بدلًا من التنقل بالفأرة إلى وصلة تعديل القسم أو الصفحة، التي تكون بعيدة عن التعليق الأخير في الغالب، ويصل المساهم لصندوق التعديل بسرعة باستخدام الأداة. ("I think the tool has a significant impact; it saves time to reply while the classic way is to move with a mouse to the Edit link to edit the section or the page which is generally far away from the comment. And the user reaches to the edit box so quickly to use the Reply tool.")[1]
The Editing team released the Reply tool as a Beta Feature at eight other Wikipedias in early August. Those Wikipedias are in the Chinese, Czech, Georgian, Serbian, Sorani Kurdish, Swedish, Catalan, and Korean languages. If you would like to use the Reply tool at your wiki, please tell User talk:Whatamidoing (WMF).
The Reply tool is still in active development. Per request from the Dutch Wikipedia and other editors, you will be able to customize the edit summary. (The default edit summary is "Reply".) A "ping" feature is available in the Reply tool's visual editing mode. This feature searches for usernames. Per request from the Arabic Wikipedia, each wiki will be able to set its own preferred symbol for pinging editors. Per request from editors at the Japanese and Hungarian Wikipedias, each wiki can define a preferred signature prefix in the page MediaWiki:Discussiontools-signature-prefix. For example, some languages omit spaces before signatures. Other communities want to add a dash or a non-breaking space.
New requirements for user signatures
edit- The new requirements for custom user signatures began on 6 July 2020. If you try to create a custom signature that does not meet the requirements, you will get an error message.
- Existing custom signatures that do not meet the new requirements will be unaffected temporarily. Eventually, all custom signatures will need to meet the new requirements. You can check your signature and see lists of active editors whose custom signatures need to be corrected. Volunteers have been contacting editors who need to change their custom signatures. If you need to change your custom signature, then please read the help page.
Next: New discussion tool
editNext, the team will be working on a tool for quickly and easily starting a new discussion section to a talk page. To follow the development of this new tool, please put the New Discussion Tool project page on your watchlist.
Editing news 2021 #1
editRead this in another language • Subscription list for this newsletter
Reply tool
editThe Reply tool is available at most other Wikipedias.
- The Reply tool has been deployed as an opt-out preference to all editors at the Arabic, Czech, and Hungarian Wikipedias.
- It is also available as a Beta Feature at almost all Wikipedias except for the English, Russian, and German-language Wikipedias. If it is not available at your wiki, you can request it by following these simple instructions.
Research notes:
- As of January 2021, more than 3,500 editors have used the Reply tool to post about 70,000 comments.
- There is preliminary data from the Arabic, Czech, and Hungarian Wikipedia on the Reply tool. Junior Contributors who use the Reply tool are more likely to publish the comments that they start writing than those who use full-page wikitext editing.[2]
- The Editing and Parsing teams have significantly reduced the number of edits that affect other parts of the page. About 0.3% of edits did this during the last month.[3] Some of the remaining changes are automatic corrections for Special:LintErrors.
A large A/B test will start soon.[4] This is part of the process to offer the Reply tool to everyone. During this test, half of all editors at 24 Wikipedias (not including the English Wikipedia) will have the Reply tool automatically enabled, and half will not. Editors at those Wikipeedias can still turn it on or off for their own accounts in Special:Preferences.
New discussion tool
editThe new tool for starting new discussions (new sections) will join the Discussion tools in Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-betafeatures at the end of January. You can try the tool for yourself.[5] You can leave feedback in this thread or on the talk page.
Next: Notifications
editDuring Talk pages consultation 2019, editors said that it should be easier to know about new activity in conversations they are interested in. The Notifications project is just beginning. What would help you become aware of new comments? What's working with the current system? Which pages at your wiki should the team look at? Please post your advice at mw:Talk:Talk pages project/Notifications.
Mary Celeste
editOn the 4th of December 1872 an American merchant brigantine was discovered abandoned and adrift in the Atlantic Ocean. She was a thoroughly wet mess, but her cargo of 1700 barrels of industrial-use alcohol was intact and undisturbed. There had been no fire. Cookware and dishes were neatly stowed. The binnacle was upset and the glass of its compass was broken; and the heavy iron stove in the galley was off its chocks. But otherwise, nothing was damaged.
Her square sails had been thrown aback, no doubt to deaden speed. Her lifeboat was missing from where it had rested atop the main cargo hatch, and the removable side railing was down indicating that the lifeboat had been lowered into the sea. A long length of rope had been securely tied to a rail, and it trailed along in the water behind the derelict ship. By all appearances the abandonment had been effected in great haste. Marks on the cargo hatch and rail indicated that an axe had been used to unfasten the lifeboat and to obtain the length of rope. The floating end of the rope was frayed. Evidently the lifeboat had been tethered to the ship until, in a swell or a gust or by capsizing perhaps, the rope had failed. Neither lifeboat nor survivors were ever found.
The last log entry put the vessel 6 nautical miles north-northeast of Saint Mary’s Island (Santa Maria) in the Azores at 8:00 AM on November 25. Whatever catastrophe occurred cannot have happened there because with sails and rudder unattended the ship could not possibly have drifted halfway to Gibraltar. To account for where she was found, she must have continued sailing eastward from the Azores maintaining about 8 knots for at least another 2 days before being abandoned.
The mystery is, of course, why was she abandoned? The captain and part owner, Benjamin Spooner Briggs, was an experienced mariner who would never have taken himself, his wife, their baby daughter and crew of seven into a lifeboat far out at sea unless he felt there was absolutely no other choice. But the ship was never on fire; was not leaking or sinking; and was definitely seaworthy. This was proven by sailors from the ship that discovered her. Just three of them managed to navigate the derelict vessel uneventfully more than 450 miles to Gibraltar where they filed a claim for salvage.
Over the years many theories have been suggested to explain the ‘ghost ship’ Mary Celeste. From absurd things like sea monsters and spirits and demonic possession to earthly things like tornadoes and seaquakes and pirates, no theory to date has ever stood up to scrutiny. Onboard emergencies like a fire or a buildup of fumes in the hold would certainly have been dealt with onboard, to the last extremity; but there was never a fire, and the main hatch was not opened to ventilate fumes. And any natural threat from the sea around them such as rough waves or waterspouts or a seaquake would surely have been more survivable onboard than in a small lifeboat.
There is, however, one earthly threat to a seaworthy vessel carrying combustible cargo where the chances of survival are dramatically improved by everyone immediately taking to a lifeboat. If warships mistaking her for an enemy were attacking from a distance with cannon and rockets and bombs bursting in air, then Captain Briggs would have had no choice but to get everyone away from the volatile cargo as far and as fast as possible, remaining just close enough to re-board after the firing stopped. The only problem with this theory is, it did not happen. No nation was at war or patrolling for pirates in that part of the world; no fighting or pirate activity had been reported there in many years; and there is no historical record of anyone launching such an attack.
With earthly threats eliminated, this leaves only the possibility of something, well, otherworldly. If there were cloudless skies over the Atlantic Ocean east of the Azores the evenings following Captain Brigg's final log entry, all aboard Mary Celeste would surely have been admiring the thousands upon thousands of silent streaks of light which that week dazzled observers throughout Western Europe. The crew of Mary Celeste would have seen harmless shooting stars many times before, of course; but none of them – nor anyone else – had ever witnessed or heard tell of a meteor shower even remotely comparable to the Andromedids of 27 November 1872. That particular night's sky gave an eye-popping display of celestial fireworks unprecedented in human history. Astromomers had been trying for decades to locate whatever might remain of two massive segments of Biela's Comet, which had broken apart in the 1840s and through the debris path of which the earth was then passing. But even the best astronomers had not anticipated anything like what happened on 27 November. The massive segments known as Comet A and Comet B were not observed at all (nor ever since!) but at the peak of Biela's storm that evening some 400 meteors flashed across the Earth's sky every 90 seconds, seeming "a real rain of fire."
It’s hard to imagine anyone aboard Mary Celeste witnessing such a magnificent display without feeling at least a sense of heightened concern about the 1700 barrels of combustible alcohol under their feet. They may or may not have seen a particularly bright meteor streaking across the sky into the lower atmosphere, but if, just then, an airburst like that of the Chelyabinsk meteor occured within 20 miles of Mary Celeste in the midst of all that other sparking splendor, they’d have been instantly dazzled by a flash of light and warmth more intense than the noonday sun. A pressure wave would have come upon them quickly and silently traveling much faster than the speed of sound. This shock wave would perhaps have nearly capsized and thoroughly drenched the vessel. A sailor standing near the binnacle may have stumbled and knocked the compass to the deck where it shattered. In the galley the heavy iron stove must have been tossed and rolled off of its chocks. Seconds later, when all were in a panic and struggling to regain their feet and their senses and comprehend what was happening to them, there would have come upon them the thunderous nerve-shattering boom of the explosion. This may have been followed, as it was in Pultusk, Poland, 5 years earlier, by a long series of cannon-like booms and crackling gunfire-like reports, and perhaps even by a rain of hail-size pebbles from the sky.[1]
What would they have done? With the benefit of hindsight we know that the danger would have passed long before Mary Celeste had steadied herself in the water. She was undamaged. There were no leaks. Nothing was aflame. The pressure wave was gone and the worst to be expected from then on was perhaps a rebound from the ocean floor a few minutes later. But they had no way of knowing this. They did not know if their ship was still seaworthy or had broken its spine and was about to sink beneath the waves, or worse, to explode. They could not even have known whether meteor airbursts – if they could have guessed what it was – come singly or come in groups. The captain must have believed he had to decide what to do quickly, and in the blind. He simply made the wrong choice.
Mindful of his dangerous cargo Benjamin Briggs decided to separate everyone from Mary Celeste as fast and as far as possible, but to remain tethered to her by a long stretch of rope, with axe in hand, ready to cut the rope if Mary Celeste sank or burst into flames; ready to climb back aboard if she seemed safe and sound. But once in the lifeboat something else went horribly wrong. A gust of wind may have caught sails and moved Mary Celeste suddenly, stretching the rope until it snapped. Or the sudden swell of an underwater shock wave rebounding from the ocean floor may have capsized the tiny overloaded lifeboat and likewise caused the tether to part. Whatever happened, when the lifeboat into which they had taken refuge was separated from Mary Celeste in the middle of that vast ocean, all were doomed.
- ^ NASA Astrophysics Data System, Meteor observed on January 30, 1868, at Pultusk, Poland (translated by W. H. Haas), Galle, J. G., pg. 44-45
Editing news 2021 #2
editRead this in another language • Subscription list for this newsletter
Earlier this year, the Editing team ran a large study of the Reply Tool. The main goal was to find out whether the Reply Tool helped newer editors communicate on wiki. The second goal was to see whether the comments that newer editors made using the tool needed to be reverted more frequently than comments newer editors made with the existing wikitext page editor.
The key results were:
- Newer editors who had automatic ("default on") access to the Reply tool were more likely to post a comment on a talk page.
- The comments that newer editors made with the Reply Tool were also less likely to be reverted than the comments that newer editors made with page editing.
These results give the Editing team confidence that the tool is helpful.
Looking ahead
The team is planning to make the Reply tool available to everyone as an opt-out preference in the coming months. This has already happened at the Arabic, Czech, and Hungarian Wikipedias.
The next step is to resolve a technical challenge. Then, they will deploy the Reply tool first to the Wikipedias that participated in the study. After that, they will deploy it, in stages, to the other Wikipedias and all WMF-hosted wikis.
You can turn on "Discussion Tools" in Beta Features now. After you get the Reply tool, you can change your preferences at any time in Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-editing-discussion.
00:27, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
Editing newsletter 2022 – #1
editRead this in another language • Subscription list for the multilingual newsletter • Local subscription list
The New topic tool helps editors create new ==Sections== on discussion pages. New editors are more successful with this new tool. You can read the report. Soon, the Editing team will offer this to all editors at most WMF-hosted wikis. You can join the discussion about this tool for the English Wikipedia is at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Enabling the New Topic Tool by default. You will be able to turn it off in the tool or at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-editing-discussion.
The Editing team plans to change the appearance of talk pages. These are separate from the changes made by the mw:Desktop improvements project and will appear in both Vector 2010 and Vector 2022. The goal is to add some information and make discussions look visibly different from encyclopedia articles. You can see some ideas at Wikipedia talk:Talk pages project#Prototype Ready for Feedback.
23:14, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
Editing news 2022 #2
editRead this in another language • Subscription list for this multilingual newsletter
The new [subscribe] button notifies people when someone replies to their comments. It helps newcomers get answers to their questions. People reply sooner. You can read the report. The Editing team is turning this tool on for everyone. You will be able to turn it off in your preferences.
Editing news 2023 #1
editRead this in another language • Subscription list for this newsletter
This newsletter includes two key updates about the Editing team's work:
- The Editing team will finish adding new features to the Talk pages project and deploy it.
- They are beginning a new project, Edit check.
Talk pages project
The Editing team is nearly finished with this first phase of the Talk pages project. Nearly all new features are available now in the Beta Feature for Discussion tools.
It will show information about how active a discussion is, such as the date of the most recent comment. There will soon be a new "Add topic" button. You will be able to turn them off at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-editing-discussion. Please tell them what you think.
An A/B test for Discussion tools on the mobile site has finished. Editors were more successful with Discussion tools. The Editing team is enabling these features for all editors on the mobile site.
New Project: Edit Check
The Editing team is beginning a project to help new editors of Wikipedia. It will help people identify some problems before they click "Publish changes". The first tool will encourage people to add references when they add new content. Please watch that page for more information. You can join a conference call on 3 March 2023 to learn more.