Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Andrewjlockley

Citations

I believe that my #1 issue is the use of reliable sources. It took a lot of blood, sweat, and tears, but some progress has been made. The main issues are:

Understanding what constitutes a proper scientific source (see second comment from bottom, [1]); this has been fixed.
The apparent belief of AJL that it is the job of others to insert sources for his material (second from bottom, [2]), he has also gotten better with this.
Citing references properly - also fixed, after a long hard battle.
Writing sentences that are referenced to studies that are irrelevant or that actually refute the sentence that was written: this is the one that gets me; it happened all the time. I don't know how much better things have gotten, as I've generally steered clear in the past week or two.

The main source of my frustration was the number of times I had to try to explain things to AJL, and the fact that (especially with the citation formats and the proper sources) I felt that my comments were ignored, and then when I broached the topic again, I would need to re-explain. It made me feel like I was wasting my time, and that is the source of the frustrated tone in some of my comments. Awickert (talk) 01:32, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

4 is what irritates me most. Broadly, I've got used to the idea that if someone inserts a cite, you can trust it to do what it says. With AJL that isn't true: most/many are irrelevant. I don't think this is a deliberate attempt to deceive: it is a mixture of not undeerstanding, and simply not caring. It hasn't got better recently William M. Connolley (talk) 12:42, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough I am glad I am making some progress. Atmoz I wasn't ignoring you, I just didn't have the tools I needed but now it's fixed. Anyway, onto pt4. I need help with this obviously. Some practical considerations:

I can't get anything more than the abstract for paid journals. How can I sort this out? (Apart from paying, obviously) Atmoz(?) offered to help but how would this work on a practical basis?
I don't want to stuff up decent articles. How do I make sure my work gets checked quickly, to make sure I'm keeping high standards and anything dodgy doesn't slip thru?
I don't have a degree in climate science, so if there are specific science areas that people think I don't understand, please say and I will read up again on them. (I don't think I'm as ignorant as I'm made out to be, though.)
It seems that maybe I'm misunderstanding the way refs are used. If you write a sentence that says 2 things, and your ref supports only 1, how do you treat that properly?

Right, can't think of any other q's now. Any help much appreciated! I want to help, not be a pain.Andrewjlockley (talk) 20:02, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how this would work on a practical basis, though I would be willing to send some over - it was me who made the offer, though Atomz also might have - though it seems in your reply you think I am him/her?

Yeah sorry it was you. Sending 1 or 2 might be OK, but I guess I'd annoy you quickly. Can I ask, is it a cardinal sin to cite off an abstract only? SHould they be considered to be a fair summary of the paper?Andrewjlockley (talk) 20

33, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Not a cardinal sin for minor things that are based on the general theme of the paper (i.e., what you can find in the abstract). Awickert (talk) 21:04, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Harsh personal standards - and always remember how many people will read what you write. Post proposed additions on talk pages or in a personal sandbox. If you really need to, ask others to check what you write before you put it up.

Hmmm, could be useful. I could cut-and-paste the section text into the TP before posting it. Might try that. I will start where there's conflict.Andrewjlockley (talk) 20

33, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good. Awickert (talk) 21:04, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that there is any particular area. Mostly it is just the understanding that climate science and academic publications and discourse are much less clean-cut than newspapers make them out to be. It's often all about models and assumptions and this and that. It just takes slogging through by everyone. One big thing though is just because one paper says something, doesn't mean it's correct. It almost always means that it's correct if the assumptions are held up, but this is fuzzy for climate.

OK, I don't think I'm too terrible on this now, but I probably wasn't too good before.Andrewjlockley (talk) 20

34, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Takes practice. Awickert (talk) 21:04, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You put the ref after the thing it supports, instead of after the whole sentence.

Makes for messy text, but I will try and tighten up on this. I thought the standard was ref-after-sentence.Andrewjlockley (talk) 20

34, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

It looks prettier after the sentence, but in academic publications, they're placed wherever they're most precise. Awickert (talk) 21:04, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Awickert (talk) 20:20, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re sources: You can pay, of course. You can go to a proper library - if they don't carry a journal, they can usually get it cheaply via Interlibrary loan. You can write the original authors, which often are quite helpful. Or you can ask at WP:LIB if someone can help you. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:23, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone would like to buy me some subscriptions to make me less annoying that would be great! :-)

Thanks so much for your help Stephan and Awickert, this is just the kind of constructive stuff I need. Ta!Andrewjlockley (talk) 20:33, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New Outside View

I just added an outside view and I've also endorsed the outside view of someone else. I want you to know that I believe you certainly have the intentions to improve the Wikipedia project and that you add a lot of good information to the pages you work on. Even so, there's some issues that people believe you need to work on which would make you an excellent editor. Please don't take my comments to personally. In the end, my goal is to help Wikipedia which I believe is your goal as well. OlYeller^Talktome01:12, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I added an "update 2" section which explains why I will no longer be making significant contributions to WP:BLP articles.Andrewjlockley (talk) 04:48, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that anyone was asking you to stop editing BLPs outright. I'm sure that you made some great contributions to other BLPs. Is it that out of the question to think that you were incorrect in this single instance? One of the greatest things that a person can do is take constructive criticism and turn it into a positive (at least in my opinion). OlYeller^Talktome06:48, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not pandering to the gang mentality which has protected WMC in this instance, and led IMO to a process that can't be relied upon to deliver a WP:NPOV article. Further, I just can't take the abuse anymore. I'm not here to do WP:BLPs, I'm here to do AGW. I worked literally all night last night cos Boris asked me to, then I check in about 0700h to find a bunch of further grief on my RfC page. It's just not the life I want. I'm throwing in the towel.Andrewjlockley (talk) 11:45, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]