User talk:Jonesey95

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot III. Any sections older than 100 days will be automatically archived to User talk:Jonesey95/Archive3. Archives prior to 2014 were compiled manually; search them via the box at the right.

GOCE February blitz wrapup[edit]

Guild of Copy Editors Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Blitzes/February 2014 wrap-up
Writing Magnifying.PNG

Participation: Out of seven people who signed up for this blitz, all copy-edited at least one article. Thanks to all who participated! Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here.

Progress report: During the seven-day blitz, we removed 16 articles from the requests queue. Hope to see you at the March drive! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators Jonesey95, Miniapolis and Baffle gab1978.

To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by


That was a slip of my finger, and I was going to revert it, but it didn't appear to have gone through on my end. Thanks for fixing that! Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:34, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Ktr101, no problem. Be careful out there. – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:38, 8 April 2014 (UTC)


Edit war.[edit]

Could you please alert someone to the edit-war going on at "Skyhook (structure)" so that it can be dealt with accordingly. -- (talk) 09:49, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

I see an ongoing discussion on the Talk page, so I'm going to decline to get involved. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:00, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
Other than fixing up the duplicate references and their templates (twice!), I am also keeping out of it. -- (talk) 15:48, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

April GOCE blitz[edit]

Modest Barnstar.png The Modest Barnstar
Thanks for copyediting two requested articles (with 2,218 words) during the April Guild of Copy Editors blitz (and for creating the barnstars page :-)). All the best, Miniapolis 22:12, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

April blitz wrap-up and May copyediting drive invitation[edit]

Guild of Copy Editors April 2014 Blitz wrap-up
Writing Magnifying.PNG

Participation: Out of 17 people who signed up for this blitz, eight copy-edited at least one article. Thanks to all who participated! Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here.

Progress report: During the seven-day blitz, we removed 28 articles from the requests queue. Hope to see you at the May drive! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators Jonesey95, Miniapolis and Baffle gab1978.

To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:18, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Discretionary sanction alerts[edit]

This follows on from your comments at WP:BOTREQ#Alerting users about discretionary sanctions applying to topics which they edit

At the Bot Requests page I am arguing against alerts about discretionary sanctions (DS) being delivered by bots. If you do not want such notices from humans either, then I suppose that you could put a notice on your user or user talk page saying that you are aware that discretionary sanctions are active in <list of topic areas you are aware DS is active in> that includes a timestamp (which you update at least once per year) and a request not to receive templated alerts. This would be taken as a formal awareness of the existence of discretionary sanctions, which means that you could be sanctioned under them without further notice if your editing behaviour is such that sanctions are required (if your editing is good then awareness of the sanctions regime has no practical implications).

Note though that this is just my opinion, and other administrators may disagree with me. The new DS regime, which introductes the concept of "alerts", which explicitly carry no implication of wrong-doing (unlike the "notices" they superceded), is only days old. Thryduulf (talk) 12:32, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the idea. I think I'm done providing feedback on this bad idea at the bot requests page. I think it goes against the fundamental idea of AGF, but I know that my opinion holds little weight. I'll wait to see (1) if a bot operator takes on the request and (2) how the BRFA process goes. I expect that things will blow up somewhere along the way. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:20, 5 May 2014 (UTC)


Apologies for the typos in Abiogenesis. I didn't run a script. That was a manual edit and I still managed to accidentally change one of the dashes within one of the DOI values. D'oh!

I think citation bot made an incorrect decision on the duplicate parameter marking. I have now reported that as a bug.

I'll be glad when there's some standardisation around using, and not using, hyphens in parameter names. I took a guess rather than go look it up - and got it wrong. Thanks for fixing. -- (talk) 08:35, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

That's funny. There is a commonly-used "dashes" script that makes this same error. I just assumed that you had used it.
I believe there was a discussion about parameter names standardizing on hyphens. Barring that, we should at least make an alias for each parameter that uses an underscore (or no space), so that hyphens are valid. Have you found parameters that accept only underscores, or that do not allow a hyphen between two words? – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:27, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
I regularly use |trans-title= and then see people correct it. Will be glad when hyphens are "the standard". I recently read a conversion about that on a talk page somewhere. I'm not sure about other parameter names, and I haven't kept a list. I'll try to pay more attention to this over the next few weeks. -- (talk) 19:54, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) Regarding |orig-year=, it's not a valid parameter, and attempting to use it throws the error "Unknown parameter |orig-year= ignored (help)". But |trans-title= is valid (provided that |title= is also present) - it throws no error but is displayed in square brackets after the main title. If people are claiming that it is not valid, and using that claim as an excuse to alter it to something else (presumably |trans_title=), it is they who are in the wrong. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:33, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the extra detail. I see many references with a non-English title and no translation, and try to add that back in wherever I can. One reason for the missing data is an editing tool which trashed the translated title if an editor attempted to add one. What's more strange is the fact that no-one ever reported that behaviour and let it continue for several years. -- (talk) 19:10, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Typos @ fighter pages[edit]

Thank for correcting my recurring typo (acessdatte) on all thse fighter pages. Psycho-Krillin (talk) 21:29, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

You're welcome. Thanks for adding content to Wikipedia! – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:07, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

PMC Citations[edit]

I stumbled across the discussion at Module talk:Citation/CS1/Archive 9#PMC error check needed while looking for something entirely different. I think the change that was made might need to be reverted; I found the following at International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing and Publication of Scholarly Work in Medical Journals: Sample References:

Forooghian F, Yeh S, Faia LJ, Nussenblatt RB. Uveitic foveal atrophy: clinical features and associations. Arch Ophthalmol. 2009 Feb;127(2):179-86.
PubMed PMID: 19204236; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC2653214.

Apparently we're not doing it correctly; perhaps the editors who are typing PMC before the number are trying to get the citation to match this style. The full format includes PubMed Central PMCID: followed by a space and then PMC is inserted before the number. The format we're using for PMID is apparently incorrect, as well; note that PubMed precedes PMID: followed by a space and the number. While we might be able to eliminate the PubMed and PubMed Central notations, apparently including PMC before the number is standard. The template will need to be updated and the instructions made clear that the template will add the PMC before the number, all the editor needs to do is supply the number. More examples may be found here that eliminate the PubMed: (List of other PMC articles citing the referenced article) The article at lists the following at the end of the article: PMID: 19204236 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] PMCID: PMC2653214. I think we may safely drop the [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]. There is also a PDF article from the Perdue University Biological Sciences department that specifically states that the PMC is to be included before the number, read the Citation examples section on page 2.
Sorry if I've opened a can of worms; let me know if there's something I can do to help. Thanks.—D'Ranged 1 talk 21:57, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
Update. I've taken this discussion to Help talk:Citation Style 1#Errors in {{cite journal}}. Jump in if you'd like, otherwise, you're off the hook!—D'Ranged 1 talk 22:49, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for moving the discussion. That was the right thing to do. – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:41, 11 May 2014 (UTC)


I just wanted to say how much I admire your skills and initiative on the May drive. Really amazing work. AbsoluteMack (talk) 14:59, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Caps fix?[edit]

How did you do that caps fix? Is there a tool?--DThomsen8 (talk) 15:29, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

I use a Mac OS program called TextWrangler or a Windows program called Notepad++, either of which allows you to select a block of text and change the case in a number of ways. I copied the whole wikitext out of the Edit window into my text editor program, made the changes, and then copied the text back to the WP Edit window. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:53, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
Good work. I could do that, too.--DThomsen8 (talk) 19:09, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

AfC Invite[edit]

Not my thing. Maybe someday. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:49, 22 May 2014 (UTC)


I thought I was creating suggestions for those parameters since they have none presently. I think suggestions should be available for them; how does one make that happen? Thanks for your patience.—D'Ranged 1 VTalk 19:27, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

When a deprecated parameter is used, a red error message is displayed. That error message is followed by a "help" link that leads to instructions on which parameters to use. I like your idea, but the module does not display suggestions for parameters that are valid, even if they are deprecated.
If these deprecated parameters are eventually marked as unsupported by the module, that will be the time to put your proposed text in the Suggestions list. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:35, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
Thank you again for your patience; this whole system is very nuanced and I'm trying to get a grip on it, but it's hard to extract the needed information from what I've been looking at. Perhaps I'm looking in the wrong places. Also, I have no idea why my post was added to the page twice; I must have previewed it, clicked "Save page", then used my browser to go back to the preview (why, I don't know—except that I've been having connectivity issues of late; very frustrating!) and clicked "Save page" again. Please pardon the clutter!—D'Ranged 1 VTalk 20:45, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
Working on fixing citation errors has taught me about the nuances of citation syntax more than any of the discussions or documentation. I recommend working on a specific category of CS1 errors for a while. If you don't know how to fix a particular error, skip it rather than implement a bad fix. As you fix more citations, you'll gain a better understanding of the system. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:18, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Default error messages[edit]

Who decides which error messages display by default for all users? I notice that unless I update my /css page, I don't see the "Cite uses deprecated parameters" message. I would think we would want all editors to see this message to educate them so they could avoid making the same mistake in the future.—D'Ranged 1 VTalk 21:28, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

The community decides. See this discussion for details about the current situation. We have two bots, Monkbot and BattyBot, that are periodically cleaning up deprecated parameters and deprecated parameters, but there is no consensus yet that those bots have cleaned a reasonable amount of "bot-fixable" errors. Soon, I hope. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:51, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
What I've seen demonstrates that use of some of the deprecated parameters is not readily "bot-fixable"; we're continuing to allow editors to create messes that have to be cleaned up by hand. (No one has come up with a good way to parse |coauthors= yet, that I've seen, for example.) There are currently 72,958 pages in Category:Pages containing cite templates with deprecated parameters. Long after the parameters themselves have been deprecated, they continue to appear in tools that editors rely on every day. I've been trying to work through some of the articles on that list, but I'm too picky and can't just remove the deprecated parameters and move on in many cases, so I'm not making much progress. (That has led, however, to much-improved articles like Attila, which was a mess, and a moderately-improved article at 1958–59 Ashes series.) I'm trying to balance "maintenance" activities with improving articles activities; I'll get it sorted.
I just realized I'm venting; I'm sorry. This is not a windmill I have the time or energy to tilt at. I just read that Mr.Z-man is releasing a new version of RefToolbar tomorrow that will finally no longer include |coauthors=; that will, I hope, cut down on the number of articles using that difficult-to-fix parameter. I hope to be around the next time someone proposes deprecating a parameter; it should never be done unless there is a plan in place (like updating tools) to deal with the consequences beforehand. Thanks for the information, and for the "ear".—D'Ranged 1 VTalk 02:13, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
Monkbot does an amazing job of parsing |coauthors=. It is taking a hiatus for a while, but I expect it will be back at some point soon. It fixed something like 90,000 articles in a few months. Before Monkbot started work on the category, it contained 164,000 articles. Now it is at 73,000, and there are no doubt more articles it will be able to fix after its break.
Windmills are no fun. I mostly ignore some kinds of errors, preferring to focus on short-term goals and on categories that are harder for bots to fix. I strongly recommend focusing your energy on CS1 error categories that can be emptied out completely. Once a category is emptied, it can be set up so that ReferenceBot notifies editors when they add an article to the category by creating an erroneous citation. Once a category is cleared, it is also easier to look at the list of articles recently added to the category and check each article's history to view and/or revert recent changes that created erroneous citations.
I have been working recently on the "archiveurl" error category, which contains only about 250 more articles that need fixing, and on the ISBN error category, from which I removed about 5,000 articles in the last few months. The remaining article fixes in both categories are usually pretty easy, although they are almost all manual, not scriptable, at this point.
In the last year or so, I have worked with a few others to clear out fourteen of the CS1 error categories. Some of those categories contained many thousands of articles. I'm happy that you have joined the effort. As I said above, I recommend finding a category that you can work on for a while so that you can become familiar with citations and the strange things editors do to them. I spent about six months just on the "wikilinks in title" category, fixing 50 or so a day until I had fixed almost all of the original 8,000 articles (another editor fixed about 1,500 of them). I learned a lot about citations, and about editing WP, while I did that work. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:37, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
ReferenceBot does not need an empty category to start watching. It just needs the category wordings.
Those were the categories identified ages ago, but only some have the descriptions. 930913 {{ping}} 07:07, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
I understand, but I do not want editors who revert bad edits to be notified about creating malformed references. I see that as a form of false positive, which is something that an error-reporting bot should avoid as much as possible. That is why I prefer to clear out the category first.
There are other cases in which the work of clearing out a category reveals a need for an improvement in the citation module code. I like to get those out of the way before possibly notifying editors that they have created a malformed citation that is actually reasonable. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:05, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

WP:GOCE May 2014 backlog elimination drive barnstar[edit]

Modest Barnstar Hires.png The Modest Barnstar
For copy editing more than 4000 words in the Guild of Copy Editors' May 2014 backlog elimination drive, please accept this barnstar along with our thanks. And thanks for being such a great lead in your first term. —Torchiest talkedits 18:26, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Never said it was a typo[edit]

that is why the edit exp = "(sp ?)". anyways, a differentiation of a spelling is a [sic] to indicate that it is presented as original.GinAndChronically (talk) 12:02, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

If you go into the article's history, you should see a red error message in that reference. You should also notice that the "sic" link is not clickable, because wikilinks within title parameters do not work when a URL is present. That is the error I was fixing. – Jonesey95 (talk) 12:41, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

GOCE June 2014 newsletter[edit]

Guild of Copy Editors May 2014 backlog elimination drive wrap-up
Writing Magnifying.PNG

Participation: Thanks to all who participated! Out of 51 people who signed up this drive, 33 copy edited at least one article. Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here.

Progress report: We reduced our article backlog from 2,987 articles to 2,236 articles in May, the lowest backlog total since we began keeping records in 2009! Since at least 300 new articles were tagged during May, that means we copy edited over 1,000 articles in a single month. Amazing work, everyone!

Blitz: The June blitz will run from June 15–21. This blitz's theme is Politics. Sign up here.

Election: You can nominate yourself or others for the role of Coordinator for the second half of 2014 here. Nominations will be accepted until June 14. Voting will begin on June 15 and will conclude on June 28.

Cheers from your GOCE coordinators Jonesey95, Baffle gab1978, and Miniapolis.

To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:27, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Accurate edit summaries[edit]

Hello, we had some cross editing on Japanese occupation of Nauru. I reverted your edit with the edit summary 'Fixing "Pages with citations using conflicting page specifications" Lua error'. This looks like a generic edit summary for a automated or semi-automated task you are performing. It gives no indication if there has been any thought put into what was actually done, or if it was only accomplished by a semi-automated edit. In this case it just removed one of the two |pages= which were in the citation. My response was to first revert the edit then investigate to see how best to combine the two. As part of that investigation, I did determine that the 314 was the total number of pages and was in the process of reverting myself when I found that there was an edit conflict due to your reverting my first revert.

Your second edit summary said " No. The editor mistakenly put the book's total page count in the page= parameter. Please click through the ISBN and look before reverting." I agree that I, perhaps, should have investigated prior to reverting. However, I would say that I should not have needed to investigate. Your original edit summary should have stated that the 314 was removed as the total pages. If it had, or if edit summary looked like something other than a task-oriented generic edit summary, then I, and any other editor looking at the edit, wouldn't need to guess, or spend their time investigating because you did not bother to make it clear in your edit summary why you were removing information.

I agree that such things should be removed. Just please, take a little bit of time to explain it just a tiny bit so that everyone following after you doesn't have to spend time figuring out why you did the exact thing that you did. We both could have done better here. I will try to do so. I hope that you will also. — Makyen (talk) 05:15, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the thoughtful feedback. I customize my edit summaries based on the type of citation error I am fixing. Given that many of the edits I am fixing provide no edit summary at all, or something minimal like "expanding section", I think my edit summaries are reasonable. I always AGF and rarely revert other editors' good faith, well-sourced edits (even if they are loaded with citation errors), preferring to fix their citations instead of reverting. That said, feel free to revert any of my edits if you have reasonable evidence to believe that I made an error. I don't take any of this personally; I'm just here to build an encyclopedia that works. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:50, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Wiki Loves Pride[edit]

You are invited! Wiki Loves Pride

You are invited to participate in Wiki Loves Pride, a global campaign to create and improve LGBT-related content at Wikipedia during the month of June, culminating with a multinational edit-a-thon on June 21. The project is being spearheaded by two organizers with roots in the Pacific Northwest. Meetups are being organized in some cities, or you can participate remotely. Wikimedia Commons will also be hosting an LGBT-related photo challenge.

In Portland, there are two ways to contribute. One is a photography campaign called "Pride PDX", for pictures related to LGBT culture and history. The Wiki Loves Pride edit-a-thon will be held on Saturday, June 21 from noon–4pm at Smith Memorial Student Union, Room 236 at Portland State University. Prior Wikipedia editing is not required; assistance will be available the day of the event. Attendees should bring their own laptops and cords.

Feel free to showcase your work here!

If you have any questions, please leave a message here. You can unsubscribe from future notifications for Oregon-related events and projects by removing your name from this list.

Input on image decision[edit]

Hi you are invited to vote for the image to be used on the LG G2 infobox page at Talk:LG G2. Thanks! GadgetsGuy (talk) 04:04, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

William Gibson errors[edit]

Wow, that was ugly. My apology for leaving such a mess. But I did not touch any references. I hope you just reverted, rather than using manual repair. I don't see how I could have left such a mess. At first, seeing your edit summary, I thought perhaps I had been using my iPad, and had accidently touched the screen between preview and save. But I'm pretty sure that I was using my desktop because I had been doing a binary search to find when snuck into 'External Links', and using 'find next' to check for presence in each version. I did not check all the way down into the reference section since I'd only removed the sentence and the link. I spent at least 20 minutes on that edit; I still don't see how so many reference formattings got screwed up, but I guess diffs don't lie, do they? - Neonorange (talk) 03:33, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Neonorange: At first, I thought you had rolled back to a revision before a lot of citation cleanup had happened, since I saw some of that in the history. But as I dug into it further, it looked like you had made a number of constructive edits, so I couldn't figure out what had happened.
Now that I look at it more, with your explanation, it looks like you inadvertently rolled the article all the way back to the 28 November 2012 version. Oops! That's not what you intended. I'm going to revert your rollback and then remove the link. – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:45, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
Fixed. Be careful out there. – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:56, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
Thank you. I am impressed with your approach to diagnosis and solution. How about this for my excuse: the site was so ugly and so filled with ads that my brain locked up. (hmm, that gives me an idea... no, won't go there for a few days) Thanks again. - Neonorange (talk) 04:06, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

So sorry—thank you![edit]

I'm not trying to create work for you, honest. I was in a bit of a hurry and didn't take the care I should have on the documentation for {{cite podcast}}; thank you for the clean-up. I hate to think someone has to follow me around and make sure my edits are made correctly; I'll be more careful in the future. (Like not editing when I know I have to run out the door!) I appreciate all you do; enjoy your day!—D'Ranged 1 VTalk 23:18, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

That's what Watchlists are for, right? I'm sure you'll have the opportunity to return the favor someday. Anyway, you did all the hard work; I just came in with a broom and swept up the dust.
When I have to run out the door, I usually leave a tab showing the page or diff open in my web browser to return to in a quieter moment. I have one open right now that has been waiting patiently for my attention for about a week. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:31, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
May I just say you have a great attitude? I wish it were more prevalent here. Unfortunately, in this instance, I not only didn't leave a tab open, I shut down my computer entirely. I appreciate that you think I did the "hard work"; that doesn't count for much when it has to be cleaned up, imo. I do appreciate the assistance, and look forward to being of help to you in the future.—D'Ranged 1 VTalk 02:37, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Die Antwoord[edit]

Hi, thanks for fixing that citation error on the Die Antwoord page. (talk) 23:43, 15 June 2014 (UTC), you're welcome. Fixing these minor errors is my primary activity on WP. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:21, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

RfC on another template with citation references[edit]

I know we disagreed regarding Template:Australian Trilobite References but because we recently discussed a template that contained citation references, I'd like your input at an RfC regarding Template:Geographic reference which is another template that contain citation references (as ref tags) but in a similar manner as the Australian Trilobites one. Thanks. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:14, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the invitation. I put my two cents in. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:42, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. In regards with Wikipedia talk:Template namespace, I disagree but I've been here long enough to get used to it. For CAstat, Template:Cite WAstat, Template:RussiaBasicLawRef, etc., what do you think of a policy (maybe not policy, more style or something more like suggestion) to always include url or string part. I can imagine a time where WikiSource actually tries to store every single statute or law and, at the very least, I know they are storing some historical biography guides. The current method is for the parameters to be in the citation but if subtemplates are used, that cross-wiki usage would be ideal. I'd rather think it out loud with people who support more than I do. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:38, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
I guess I don't see why some of these templates bother you so much. As you can see, I agree with you in some places (that geography template is a mess!), but not in others (I disagree with your substing and deleting cite doi templates; the citations will fork, and errors in them will be more time-consuming to fix).
I have seen the clear utility and concision of many of these single-source templates in many articles. Where I have disagreed with you, it has often been about issues that may have the potential to arise but are far from coming to pass, such as there being tens of millions of cite templates. I prefer to work on actual problems that are manifesting themselves right now in WP rather than dreaming up solutions to problems that may never arise.
It looks like you've been away from WP editing for a few years. You might consider that some cultural and technological shifts have taken place while you were away, and maybe spend some time hanging out in places like the Village Pump where people discuss basic issues, before you start trying to make sweeping changes to things that have been created and widely used for years.
I do not follow your sentence about the proposed policy or guideline. What does "to always include url or string part" mean? I also do not understand "if subtemplates are used, that cross-wiki usage would be ideal". Sorry if I'm being dense. – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:23, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Your comments at user talk: Citation bot[edit]

Did you read the top of that talk page? The operator is seldom on wiki. If you seek a response, I suggest you use email. LeadSongDog come howl! 05:49, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

I also left a message at the operator's talk page, which should send him a notification via e-mail. Thanks for the reminder. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:53, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
(talk page stalker)Is that accessdate removal actually a problem? It looks like it's only removing it from cites that don't contain urls. My understanding is that the accessdate parameter exists so that if a link goes dead, it is possible to go look up the link on an archive site and know a date when the link was valid. For citing books as in the article you linked, the accessdate doesn't really apply to anything. —Torchiest talkedits 16:52, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
I don't think that the bot is being as discriminating as you or I would be. Since the bot was not approved to perform this particular operation, and there is no consensus that removing accessdates is the right thing to do (as opposed to commenting them out or adding a URL or eliminating the error message from the cite module code), the bot is putting itself at risk of being stopped altogether for something small that it should simply keep its nose out of.
Here are some links to discussions about this accessdate error: here and here. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:38, 17 June 2014 (UTC)


If it is simply listing parameters, then why does the section say "Usage?" And, these examples/parameter listings previously did contain the date for copying purposes, and the text above the code boxes says "Some samples may include the current date." I don't understand why the date which used to be included here isn't being included anymore. BenYes? 19:23, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Sigh. I thought that none of the CS1 cite template docs showed values in these parameter lists, but now that I have looked at {{cite journal}}, {{cite news}}, {{cite book}}, and {{cite web}}, which are among the most used ones, there is no consistency. There should be, but documentation for each template is, at least in part, manually maintained. I don't know how to set them up to share common documentation, or even if that is the right thing to do. We muddle along.... – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:07, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

MOS question.[edit]

Do lead sections fall under the MOS rules as far as avoiding "the" as the opening word goes, or is that just for titles? --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 00:15, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)Hi Skamecrazy123, there's no requirement to avoid opening to first sentence of the article with "the"; you should use your judgement to determine a suitable opening. If you need any further help, please tell us which article you're referring to. See the MOS here. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 03:20, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

E T Davies[edit]

Thanks in great part to you, the article about E T Davies was keep after its deletion review, but it still needs addition citations to reliable, independent sources. --Bejnar (talk) 15:56, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Bejnar, you're welcome. I found a good source via a quick Google search. Looking in Google Books and Google News for terms related to E. T. Davies, such as the titles of his publications listed on his VIAF page (linked at the bottom of the article), should lead you to useful sources. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:24, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

GOCE Drive[edit]

Hello Jonesey! I see that you are the head coordinator for the GOCE! If you don't mind answering my question, it is if you can rollover words from the June blitz to the July drive... Cheers! WooHoo!Talk to BrandonWu! 02:24, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

BrandonWu, welcome to the GOCE! Rollover words from the June blitz will apply to the August blitz, which is the next one. Drives and blitzes are held in alternating months. Rollover words from each drive apply to the next drive. – Jonesey95 (talk) 02:54, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

June GOCE Blitz[edit]

Minor Barnstar Hires.png The Minor Barnstar
Thanks for copyediting a total of 1,386 words during the June Guild of Copy Editors blitz! All the best, Miniapolis 23:03, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

A kitten for you![edit]

Cute grey kitten.jpg

Thank you for your contribution to Wikipedia.

Anabeel12 (talk) 09:57, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! Cute. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:14, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

GOCE July 2014 newsletter[edit]

Guild of Copy Editors July 2014 newsletter is now ready for review. Highlights:

– Your project coordinators: Jonesey95, Baffle gab1978 and Miniapolis.

To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:27, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Fulham FC - Source feat. Jamie Redknapp[edit]

When I originally added this source I couldn't find an author as such. Jamie Redknapp had co-authored it (that much was very clear in the article): Redknapp did not write the article. Is there a way of showing that? Spa-Franks (talk) 23:07, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Redknapp and "Opta" are the only cited contributors. We do not cite "staff" or "editorial staff" as an author, so after looking at the source, I put Redknapp and Opta as the authors. I think a reasonable person would see that those were the only named contributors to the article. If you really don't like that, you could leave |author= blank and enter |others=Jamie Redknapp, contributor or something like that. – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:01, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank You[edit]

Face-smile.svg Thank you very much, Your edits to the monarch butterfly article are appreciated!

bpage (talk) 13:58, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

You're welcome. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:18, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Oh dear...[edit]

This wasn't the response I was hoping for from the involved party. Sorry. :-( Baffle gab1978 (talk) 04:06, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

So it goes. We'll see if they can work it out like grown-ups. I hope so. The article is a treat to read and will be a great one if they let us shine it up a bit. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:36, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Template:cite doi RfC[edit]

Because you commented at this discussion, I would appreciate your views at this RfC on the larger issue of DOI templates. Thanks! -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:23, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

AutoEd example[edit]

Hi Jonesey95,

Thanks for undoing that edit. I should've reviewed it more carefully. In my defence though, the space in the list item and the superfluous line break at the and are fine, right? AutoEd probably shouldn't be modifying content inside <nowiki> either, though. Krinkle (talk) 15:28, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

I never worry about spaces and line breaks. I'm fussy, but just not that fussy. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:29, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Handling of ISBN errors[edit]

Hello, I saw that in this edit you have commented out the invalid ISBNs with comment "invalid; please verify". I think this is a bad idea. The ISBN error _is_ the request to verify and fix the ISBN. I don't think it is even possible to find the broken ISBNs once you've commented them out (a wiki search for "invalid; please verify" finds nothing). I was able to fix the ISBN (diff) but only because I had already opened the page via Category:Pages_with_ISBN_errors before your edits. If your edit had got there first I would not have known there was a problem to fix.TuxLibNit (talk) 22:32, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Well stated. I have fixed a few thousand of these, and I have commented only a tiny handful when I was unable to find the book using Google, Worldcat, Amazon, or other book searches. I don't know why I was unable to find this particular book.
My goal is to clear out Category:Pages_with_ISBN_errors. I have fixed about 5,000–6,000 of the original 8,000 so far. If I run into this situation in the future, I will either leave it alone or comment the ISBN to hide the glaring red error message, and add the {{Please check ISBN}} template, which puts the article into Category:Articles with invalid ISBNs but does not put any error messages in the rendered article. Thanks for the comment. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:23, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikilinks in URL[edit]

Hi! About this issue, then what I will do is not use the "url" parameter at all and instead link to the URL from the "page" field. That way the URL can be clicked on from the "page" WhisperToMe (talk) 04:58, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

That would be one way to do it. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:04, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
Hmmm... it seemed to malfunction even with the URL in the page field so I for now moved the page links outside of the template WhisperToMe (talk) 05:06, 11 July 2014 (UTC)