User:Jc3s5h

This is a Wikipedia user page.
This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user whom this page is about may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia. The original page is located at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jc3s5h.

Jc3s5h

en

This user is a native speaker of the English language.

This user is a poll worker.

This user is a participant in WikiProject Elections and Referendums.

This user participates in WikiProject Anthroponymy.

This user participates in WikiProject Law.

This user is a member of the WikiProject Amateur radio

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.

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)

Wikidata and verifiability

An RfC about Wikidata and verifiability was held at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wikidata Phase 2.

To do

Clean up citations in Ophiuchus.
Clean up citation in Epoch (reference date).

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

/common.js Javascript page.
/Gregorian calendar experiment
/YYYY-MM-DD articles
/sandbox subpage to work on articles or edits when it will take a while to whip them into shape.
/sandbox2 similar to above.
/sandbox3 similar to above.
/sandbox4 similar to above.
/sb-DATEtoMOS similar to above.
/sortTable experiments with sortable tables
/Harvard citation presents an example of creating Harvard citations with links between the text citation and the reference list entry, without the use of citation templates.
/Note citation presents an example of creating notes (sometimes called endnotes or footnotes) with short citations, followed with a reference list containing full citations.
/Boracay Bill on references is a snippet from Boracay Bill's talk page that I want to keep track of.
/Zodiac dates testcase
/Live examples of Julian calendar citations
/Citation testcases
/Date from Wikidata test cases

Articles created

Articles merged

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

Modules created

Module:Zodiac date, corrected calculation of sign date ranges (April 2016).

Essays created

Wikipedia:Why Wikipedia's policies and guidelines should never use the term "third party" (January 2025).

Significant changes to pages

New citations, citation format cleanup in Coordinated Universal Time
Provide citations in International Atomic Time, which previously had a {{refimprove}} template.
Jech v. Burch‎
Universal Time (updated description of the main form, UT1, from the late 20th century version to the early 21st century version)
Tropical year which had several reference related templates and a great deal of what looked like original research
{{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.
I added the "Numerical value of year variation" section to the Year article on 7 November 2012.
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)
{{Infobox zodiac}}. Call Lua module Module:Zodiac date instead of Template:Zodiac date in order to correct date calculations (April 2016).
Sidereal time. Updated definition to those used since the early 21st century.
Calendar (New Style) Act 1750. Participated in upgrade to good article.
Leap year. Citation and date cleanup on July 13, 2013.
{{Death date}} and related templates, which provide incorrect metadata for Julian calendar dates, removed from articles about popes who lived while the Julian calendar was in effect (that is, before 1583). 10 May 2025.
Help:FTP, edited so that the example works. 11 May 2025.

Significant citation cleanup

Leap year (Cleaned up citations again May 2012. First citation introduced in this edit by Johnleemk.)
Metre
Birth certificate
System time
Certification authority (May 2012)
Universal Time (March 2013)
Daylight saving time. Undo introduction of vcite family of citations in August 2011 without discussion, when cite family was already in use. (July 2013)
Suffix (name). (September 9, 2013)
High visibility clothing. (October 14, 2013).
Historia ecclesiastica gentis Anglorum‎. (December 13, 2013) Made citations link to bibliography. Working with User:Felix Folio Secundus, rescued bibliography entries from 2009.
Astronomical unit. (May 7, 2014)
Leap year. (April 18, 2015)
Julian day. (April 24, 2015)
Articles about zodiac signs (April 2016)
Metonic cycle (March 2022)
Moderator (town official). (April 2025) Converted citations from parenthetical to citation templates with list-defined references.

Citations

Many articles use footnote citations, by means of the "Cite" Wikimedia extension. See mw:Help:Cite.

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

{{book reference}} is the predecessor to {{Cite book}}. According to the first thread on this talk page archive, shortly after it was created, it was remodeled to resemble MLA. (August 2004.)

Commas or periods to separate elements

It appears that all printed style guides and printed scholarly publications use commas to separate elements when the citation takes the form of a footnote, but use periods to separate the elements when the citations are presented in an alphabetical list.

Footnotes, comma separator: Chicago Manual of Style (documentation one style, can be supplemented with alphabetical listing with period separators); MHRA Style Guide; QST; Computer.

'Alphabetical list, period separator: Chicago Manual of Style (documentation two style); APA style; The MLA Handbook for Writers of Research Papers; MHRA Style Guide.

CS1 parameter lists

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.

As pointed out by HTH, {{Reflist-talk}}^[1]. close=1 is not needed (but is ignored without error if used). title= is optional; defaults to References (use empty title to circumvent default).

[1]
this templates encloses the references in a box

This variant is widely used to keep references within the talk page thread that contains the inline citation.

Citation of other Wikimedia projects

See Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia

Guide to guides

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.