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.



Help on Loboc Church[edit]

I hope you could do some CE on the article. I already wrote a request on WP:GOCE. Thanks.--Carlojoseph14 (talk) 18:26, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't work on a lot of articles from the GOCE Requests page, but I will take a look if I have time. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:43, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. --Carlojoseph14 (talk) 02:52, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Original Barnstar Hires.png The Original Barnstar
Thanks for the tech edit :) JuliaRobertson (talk) 04:23, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
You're welcome. I'm just blowing the dust out and trying to keep things tidy around here. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:24, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

GOCE October Blitz award[edit]

Minor Barnstar.png The Minor Barnstar
Hi Jonesey95, thank you for copy editing 1,836 words in 1 article during the Guild of Copy Editors’ October Blitz. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 02:15, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for correcting my mistakes[edit]

Tournesol.png Thank you for correcting most of my citation mistakes at Alfa Romeo 8C and pointing out the one you couldn't correct. I have no idea why I put 1972 in the Vorderman citations; the Hull & Moore citations to another article in the same issue were correct. Thanks again! Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 03:12, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

You're welcome. It takes a community to build an encyclopedia. Have fun editing that Alfa article. – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:14, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Happy Halloween!!![edit]

Caramel Peanut Candy Apples 2592px.jpg
Wilhelmina Will has given you some caramel and a candy apple! Caramel and candy-coated apples are fun Halloween treats, and promote WikiLove on Halloween. Hopefully these have made your Halloween (and the proceeding days) much sweeter. Happy Halloween!

'"On Psych, A USA Network TV series Episode 8, The Tao of Gus, Season 6, Shawn refers to pumpkins as "Halloween Apples" because he thinks all round fruits are a type of apple.


If Trick-or-treaters come your way, add {{subst:Halloween apples}} to their talkpage with a spoooooky message!

Candyapple.jpg


Cheers! "We could read for-EVER; reading round the wiki!" (talk) 17:48, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Sherlock Holmes[edit]

I've finished the GAN preparation, and you mentioned that you wanted to take a look. All the best, Miniapolis 21:37, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Miniapolis: It looks much improved from the skim reading I did a few weeks ago. I will go through it and tweak a bit over the next few days, section by section. You may find that I make some of the same edits and comments I made before; if so, sorry for the redundancy, but if I find the same problem twice, it might be an actual problem (or I might have an actual problem, which is likely). – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:21, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
A few notes on my copy edits, to be added to as I go along. Consider this a pre-GA prose review.
1. "Attitudes towards women" is a title that doesn't seem to fit the section. Perhaps "Relationships with women"or something else would be more appropriate.
Trouble is, Holmes doesn't really have "relationships with women" :-). Miniapolis 21:08, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
2. The "Other women" section needs reorganization. The first sentence is out of place. The second sentence of the second paragraph is somewhat redundant with much of the first paragraph.
Reorganized. Keep in mind, though, that this is GA and not FA. 21:08, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
3. There are a few places in the article where there is a jump from the fictional world to the real world, jumping from Watson and Holmes's descriptions of events and people to Doyle's descriptions or those of Klinger etc. It is a bit jarring.
4. The section on deduction says that he uses abductive reasoning. The article contrasts abductive reasoning with deductive reasonin, but the Holmes article conflates the two.
The way I read it, he uses both forms of reasoning for different purposes. Miniapolis 21:08, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
5. Is "sergeant of Marines" proper British English? I have never seen this usage in American English.
6. What does "NCO" stand for?
Changed "sergeant of Marines" (probably a direct canonical reference) to "Marine sergeant" and "NCO" (common in American English) to "non-commissioned officer". Miniapolis 21:08, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
7.Replace "his chronicler" with "Watson"? The word "chronicler" appears at least twice; I would replace it with the straightforward "Watson" in all cases.
I judiciously used "his chronicler" (as I did "the detective") to minimize repetition. Miniapolis 21:08, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
8. The "Pistols" section is just a laundry list. Summarize or choose notable instances.
There may be too much detail for you (or me), but it's reliably sourced. Miniapolis 21:08, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
9. I found one dead link in the Pistols section. Check for others. I think I was admonished once that dead links do not disqualify an article from being a GA, but dead links should be avoided in general.
Dead links should not be removed (although I'll check the refs and tag any I find), to preserve the possibility of repair. Miniapolis 21:08, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
10. Wikipedia articles are used as references, in violation of WP:CIRCULAR.
The stories themselves, wikilinked, are primary sources. Miniapolis 21:08, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
11. Reference formatting is inconsistent (scan the author names, for example). This is not a GA criterion, but it could be cleaned up.
12. The long quotation in the "Knowledge" section does not match the text given at http://www.gutenberg.org/files/244/244-h/244-h.htm. This sort of problem is why I requested citations for each of the quoted sections of text. One could reasonably say "It's from the story, why should I cite it?" There are often differences in published versions of written works, however.
13. The "Knowledge" section contains a bunch of apparent OR. I tagged the ones that stood out to me most vividly.
14. The last paragraph of the Knowledge section should probably be removed or drastically revised. It's all OR claiming to be about Holmes's knowledge of psychology, but the incidents described are just knowledge of human nature.
15. The author is sometimes referred to as "Doyle" and sometimes as "Conan Doyle".
16. "Holmes helped marry forensic science ... and literature." This lead sentence refers to literature, but literature is not mentioned until much later in the section. The first sentence could be left out. In any event, this section also needs more citations, otherwise it appears to be OR that suffers from the post hoc fallacy, e.g. "Holmes frequently laments the contamination of a crime scene, and crime-scene integrity has become standard investigative procedure."
17. I find this whole Influence section frustrating without citations. It repeatedly says "Holmes (or Conan Doyle) did this, and now it's popular", implying that Holmes was the cause, but not stating it explicitly or citing sources. I did not copy-edit this section because it needs major cleanup first.
18. The "Scientific literature" section might fit better in the "Knowledge" section or in a new section of the article that contains out-of-fictional-universe information about the stories and the author. It is again jarring to be pulled back and forth between the real and fictional worlds. This section also uses a different citation style from other sections.
19. "Finances" section is unreferenced. It feels like OR.
It's referenced, albeit with primary sources (the stories). Miniapolis 00:24, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
20: What does "provided Doyle with a link" mean? Does it mean he gave him the idea, or taught him something about it, or exemplified it somehow?
The preceding sentence explains its meaning. Miniapolis 00:24, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
I'm not going to do the GA review, but I think the article is weak only on the criteria relating to original research and unnecessary detail. I have noted places where I had significant concerns. It passes criteria 1, 3a, 4, 5, and 6 with no trouble.
I'm done. Let me know if you have any questions, dear Miniapolis. Feel free to reject any of my edits, criticisms, or questions. I will not take it personally. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:56, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
Well, with all the tags I don't know if it will be quick-failed but I'm going to nominate it anyway. Miniapolis 21:08, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
I tried to be sparing with the tags (by my count, I added seven tags to this 8,000-word article), preferring to list comments here, because I wanted to give you a chance to rebuild the article your way as a complete piece. The article is well on its way to being wonderful after your work. Good luck with the GA nomination. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:25, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
I can't see it not being quick-failed with the tags on it now, and I've already put as much time as I could (a lot) into its improvement. Since you didn't intend to review it, I don't understand why you didn't let the GAN process run its course instead of making it un-nominatable in the first place. Miniapolis 23:28, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
The tags I added would only change the GA review if the reviewer were not competent enough to notice the items that I tagged. As I said above, four and a half of the six criteria have been met with ease, which means the article is much better than it was before your extensive editing. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:58, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

() See my reply on the article talk page. After almost a month of hard work on this article, I've gone as far as I can. Tagging is a lot easier than fixing. Tant pis—it could've been a GA. Miniapolis 14:38, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for removing the tags; I'll nominate it soon, and do my bit by reviewing a nomination or two. Miniapolis 00:24, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

format oddness[edit]

Hi - thanks for [1] but it was odd to me - when I had "date" in there originally it gave me date errors. That's the only reason I tried month/year. Seems to me some odd invisible syntax is going on. I have the same problem with the hyphens. I'm a Mac user and some quality of the - or – does not manage the same syntax. Anyway, just pointing out that there are some challenges I've not found a solution to. And the absolute insistance on a particular syntax tends to be a platform dependent formulation in case you weren't aware. --Smkolins (talk) 01:01, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

You're welcome. I don't know which of the dozens of fixes you had trouble applying yourself. If you give a specific example of a citation you tried to type, I may be able to help. If you get date errors, you should be able to follow the Help link for an explanation. If the Help doesn't help, I'll be happy to assist.
As for your last few sentences, I don't know what you are referring to. I use a Mac too. For a hyphen, just type the minus sign, to the right of the zero on your keyboard. For an en dash (to separate ranges, like 1894–1899), type option-minus. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:08, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
Puzzling! I've done hyphen and option-minus as you say and still have people come up behind and change them somehow. Here's a question - I used the "US Extended" keyboard setting most of the time. I wonder if that changes things. As for the former is the "date" entry have illegal entries? For example distinguishing Jun, June and Jun.? Maybe it is something like that?? --Smkolins (talk) 01:20, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
Follow the Help link in the date error or go to WP:BADDATEFORMAT and WP:MONTH to see acceptable and unacceptable date formats in citation templates. I fixed "March/April" by changing it to "March–April", "Sept" by changing it to "Sep", and more.
In short, don't worry about it unless you're obsessive about it like me. Someone will come in behind you and fix these little things. It's more important to fill the encyclopedia with accurate content than to worry about minor formatting issues. – Jonesey95 (talk) 02:47, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
that sounds good … thanks. --Smkolins (talk) 19:49, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank You :)[edit]

I really appreciate that you took the time to fix my Peoples of the Caucasus template, I hadn't noticed that template breaking error, thank you for fixing it. Abrahamic Faiths (talk) 01:47, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

You're welcome. This sort of error was very difficult to notice until a couple of weeks ago, when the Wikimedia developers added new code that checks for duplicate parameters. A few of us gnomes have been fixing the templates and articles with this error. – Jonesey95 (talk) 02:01, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi, can you make a comment about my new project Encyclopine.org[edit]

hi, Hi, can you make a comment about my new project Encyclopine.org?

Interesting idea. Good luck with it. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:52, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Kindness Barnstar Hires.png The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
Thanks for your help with my citations on the entry for Eli Siegel. It's been a while since I did any editing. Thanks for cleaning up.
Trouver (talk) 23:32, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
You're welcome! We're all in this together. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:33, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Sorry about the duplication, but your good will is appreciated.

A barnstar for you![edit]

Kindness Barnstar Hires.png The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
Another barnstar for the citation wrangler extraordinaire! Thanks for perfecting my mostly-complete cite for the Salmon of Doubt chapter in Functional magnetic resonance imaging. I hadn't done one of those fancy chapter-in-a-book cites before - great modeling! ★NealMcB★ (talk) 14:02, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
You're welcome. Thanks for improving the article's content. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:00, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Parameter name[edit]

Hi. I saw your CS1 edit [2] in Template:Infobox hydrogen. My eye catched that you used |chapter-url=, where the CS1 documentation writes |chapterurl= (no hyphen). No CS1 message results, so I guess it might be an accepted variant parameter name. No problem, but in future edits you might want to use the formal one. This is just a note, I have no reason to change your edit. -DePiep (talk) 05:43, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. The two parameter names are aliases, so they function identically to one another. We are moving toward consistency in parameter naming, with all multi-word parameters using hyphens instead of underscores, spaces, or nothing (two words jammed together). We haven't updated all of the citation documentation yet. That will take some time. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:50, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
OK, so it's the other way around. Is that hyphen-connecting new wisdom? I could use a good standard in this parameter naming issue (any discussion link for that? found). -DePiep (talk) 05:54, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
For my lovely stalkers: hyphenated citation parameters RFC. – Jonesey95 (talk) 06:13, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. (Am I stalking?) -DePiep (talk) 08:20, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
No, but other people are, and they wanted to know where you found that RFC, so I linked to it for them. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:10, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Warning! TemplateData integrity compromised[edit]

Hi.

By now, you should have noticed that I have reverted your edits in Template:Cite journal/doc‎, Template:Cite book/doc, Template:Cite press release/doc and Template:Cite news/doc. That's because your edits have compromised the integrity of TemplateData JSON code. (Syntactic breaches are caught on save. But name/alias conflict and lack of care for existing valid usages are not.) I you are willing to make another attempt, you must be careful not breach this integrity.

That said, I am looking at Help talk:Citation Style 1/Archive 5 § RFC: Citation Style 1 parameter naming convention and I don't see anything about decomissioning existing parameters. This probably means I will have review many of your other edits as well.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 09:16, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice, but I'm afraid I do not understand. I was following up on the part of the RfC that states "The documentation is to show this lowercase, hyphenated version as the one for "normal use". This is to establish a parameter name format that is uniformly available for all CS1 templates."
You mention "decommissioning existing parameters". First, I did not, to my knowledge, take action to decommission any existing parameters. That would require editing the citation module code, which I have not done with these edits. I edited only the documentation. Second, the RfC does mention that "this proposal is not to eliminate any current version of a parameter".
Can you please point me to information about this JSON integrity of which you speak, or explain to me how my edits were faulty? I have reviewed my edits and am unable to find anything wrong with them. Thanks. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:45, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
Codename Lisa, I have read the TemplateData Tutorial, and it does not mention JSON integrity. I copied the template data text from my edited version of Template:Cite news/doc into the validator at jsonlint.com, and it validates.
The only tiny problem I can see with my edit of the TemplateData is that I failed to delete a hyphen in the "author-link" alias to change it to "authorlink". Is that the only problem? If so, can I reinstate my changes if I fix that problem? How can I check my edits in the future to ensure that they are valid? Thanks for any feedback and knowledge you can provide. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:56, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
Wow! Your messages almost made me lose faith in humanity! Alright, read carefully from now on, because carelessness of this degree is dangerous beyond all imagination.
Invoking revision #636341239 (pertaining Template:Cite journal/doc), on line 677, you changed "authorlink" to "author-link". Result: VisualEditor no longer acknowledges |authorlink=, which my colleagues and I used on hundreds of articles and is still valid. Same goes for |authorlink2=, |accessdate=, |origyear=, |archiveurl=, |archivedate=, |layurl=, |laysource=, |laydate=, |authorlink3=, |authorlink4=, |authorlink5=, |authorlink6=, |authorlink7=, |authorlink8=, |authorlink9= and |lastauthoramp=. These are totally valid parameters and VisualEditor no longer recognizes them after your edit. All you had to do was to create an "Alias" entry for each of these using Manage TemplateData button in the editor.
This doesn't mean changes outside the JSON area (the area enclosed by <TemplateData>...</TemplateData>) are okay; they are even more kinky. Violation of MOS:STABILITY notwithstanding, you effectively changed the style of examples while leaving the style of syntax alone, effectively making them look different. Necessary changes to the template area and its shared documentations was already done.
Overall, you just did a reckless blind search & replace. Nothing else.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 16:19, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation. Do these instructions about VisualEditor and aliases exist anywhere on WP or WM aside from this talk page? I'm happy to follow instructions, but it is unreasonable to expect editors to magically know how new features work when there is no documentation of those features. In any event, as you describe it, the TemplateData would not have worked for all citation parameters even before my edits, since the editor(s) who added the TemplateData section failed to include all of the available aliases.
I disagree with your note about changes outside the JSON area. MOS:STABILITY says "editors should not change an article from one of those styles to another without a good reason" (emphasis added). We have a good reason for changing these examples, and the documentation, as explained in detail in the RFC discussion linked above. Providing consistency among multi-word parameters in documentation and examples reduces editor confusion. Just the other day, an editor wasted time reverting a valid change that I had made because the documentation was inconsistent.
I will reinstate my changes per the RFC outcome, and I will attempt to carefully add aliases where they are needed avoid changing the TemplateData section. If you find any minor errors in the resulting edits, please fix them instead of reverting, since, as you say above, that's all you have to do. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:41, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done. I have reinstated my original changes to align the citation template documentation with the RFC outcome while preserving the changes made subsequent to my original edits. I have not touched the TemplateData sections (AFAIK, except to remove outdated explanations of how "et al." works). I would be happy to improve them to make them consistent with the rest of the documentation and the RFC outcome, but I would like to educate myself first about how to avoid compromising the integrity of the JSON code. I would appreciate any links to documentation.
I see that Codename Lisa has added aliases to the TemplateData sections, and Tom.Reding has made some helpful changes to update how |date= and |year= are handled. Thanks for those improvements. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:18, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
It occurs to me to wonder, now that Editor Codename Lisa has added aliases, if we shouldn't exchange non-hyphenated parameter names with the hyphenated alias version so that the first option is always the hyphenated name. Here is a modified snippet from {{cite journal}}:
"author-link": {
"label": "Author link",
"description": "Title of existing Wikipedia article about the author; can suffix with a numeral to add additional authors",
"type": "wiki-page-name",
"aliases": ["authorlink"]
},
And here is a slightly related question: what can we do about this duplication of documentation? It seems completely pointless to me for us to be maintaining two different sets of documentation with two different formatting requirements. Surely there's a better way. Who has responsibility for template data?
And I have more questions: Why is it necessary to have separate template data information for things like |lastn= where n is capable of being a very lasge number? Similarly, why repeat documentation in template data for numbered parameters like |last2=, |last3=, |last4=, etc.? |last1= and other |<parameter name>1= parameters are unique because they are aliases of their unnumbered selves.
With so many parameters shared between the various CS1 and CS2 templates why shouldn't we set up a single documentation source, sort of like {{csdoc}} and use that to feed both the human readable template documentation and template data?
Trappist the monk (talk) 19:17, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
Trappist, this might be a good point at which to move this discussion off of my talk page, since it is about the citation templates in general instead of about my "reckless blind", terrible, horrible, "dangerous beyond all imagination", no good, very bad editing skills. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:25, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Hello again. I am not here to teach you stuff that you can find in help files already. (If I could find them and become a user with templateeditor right, you can too.) But the rule of thumb is: The criteria for change to TemplateData is that they must work as intended. Fail this criteria and the result is a revert. You didn't test this criteria, but that's your fault not mine.
But again, I see that you are misread my message and overlooked the word "notwithstanding". Template area in Wikipedia is so critical that cannot afford idiosyncrasies of one editor alone; speak to him/her politely and resolve your dispute locally. An edit that affects millions of editors is not warranted.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 04:04, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
I will ignore your insults and non sequiturs and repeat my request: Please provide a link to information about how to determine if changes to TemplateData files will cause problems. I told you above what I had found and that I successfully tested the resulting code using a tool linked from that page. I am politely requesting that you stop biting this TemplateData newbie and provide a simple link. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:12, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

OK, now I need some help from my talk page stalkers. The edits I made to a number of template documentation pages have been reverted multiple times by Codename Lisa despite my careful explanations above, my links to the relevant RFC closure in my edit summaries, and my careful attention to Codename Lisa's explanation of the TemplateData section above. As it stands now, the template documentation pages are not in conformance with the RFC closure.

Codename Lisa has also reverted my edits that correctly removed information about the templates' display of nine authors, with no explanation of why that inaccurate information should remain in the template documentation.

I try not to get involved in edit wars, but at this point, I think I'm in the middle of one. In your judgment, am I doing something wrong? What is your advice? – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:02, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

My friend, God has placed a brain in your skull and Wikimedia foundation has given you sandboxing. Use them! Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 04:05, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Minor Barnstar Hires.png The Minor barnstar
For finding "the it" and showing a sense of humor about little stuff. Folklore1 (talk) 03:06, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

November GOCE drive[edit]

Just wondering if Awards have been distributed on this drive yet? Let me know if I can help do a few! --Bddmagic (talk) 15:16, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Not yet. Should be today or tomorrow. The stats page is done. If you know any template coding, I'm thinking (but not for this month's awards) about developing a template to make drive award delivery easier. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:50, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Well-deserved bling[edit]

CleanupBarnstar.PNG The Cleanup Barnstar
This barnstar is awarded to Jonesey95 for copy edits totaling over 12,000 words during the GOCE November 2014 Backlog Elimination Drive. Congratulations, and thank you for your contributions! Miniapolis 17:12, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
Goce silver barnstar.png Guild of Copy Editors Leaderboard Award: Old Articles, 4th Place
This Leaderboard Barnstar is awarded to Jonesey95 for copyediting nine old articles during the GOCE November 2014 Backlog Elimination Drive. Congratulations, and thank you for your contributions! Miniapolis 17:12, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Alan Jones[edit]

Hi, thanks for the ref fix on AJ's page. I was in the process of doing it but you were there at the same time which produced an edit conflict and confused me! (Not difficult). Regards Eagleash (talk) 21:54, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Sorry about the edit conflict. I usually check the edit history before I do an extensive edit, but for quick fixes like that one, I am usually running at a pace of one or two edits per minute, just enough time to check the preview and save. There are so many little errors out there.... – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:31, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
No problem it took me a couple of mins. to spot what was wrong. It's weird when the refs don't show up on preview....so you don't realise you've messed up till after you've saved. Eagleash (talk) 00:11, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
If you're editing the whole article, refs should show up when you Preview. If you're editing a section and want to see the refs in a Preview, you need to add this to your vector.js file to get an extra button:
//Add button to edit screen to Preview with references
importScript('User:Anomie/ajaxpreview.js'); // Linkback: [[User:Anomie/ajaxpreview.js]]
It works for me, anyway. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:27, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
That would be very useful. However i have no idea what a vector.js file is... :P Eagleash (talk) 02:45, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
Click on the link above, create the page, and paste the two lines of code into the page and save it. Then go to an article and edit a section. You should see a new "Ajax Preview" button between Save and Preview. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:35, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Excellent; got it right the second time of trying too! Seems to work fine. Thanks. Regards. Eagleash (talk) 10:55, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

On the subject of ref fixes, there's one here. It's ref No 10 (the one with text inserted) whatever I try doesn't work so I've left it as I found it. Thanks. Eagleash (talk) 14:54, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
I resolved it in the way that made the most sense to me. Another editor may have taken a different approach. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:32, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
Makes perfect sense to me. Eagleash (talk) 21:36, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

GOCE coordinator elections[edit]

Greetings from the Guild of Copy Editors
Writing Magnifying.PNG
GOCE Coordinator.png

Candidate nominations for Guild coordinators to serve from January 1 to June 30, 2015, are currently underway. The nomination period will close at 23:59 on December 15 (UTC), after which voting will commence until 23:59 on December 31, 2014. Self-nominations are welcomed. Please consider getting involved; it's your Guild and it won't coordinate itself, so if you'd like to help coordinate Guild activities we'd love to hear from you.

Cheers from your GOCE coordinators Jonesey95, Baffle gab1978, and Miniapolis.
Message sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:17, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Kindness Barnstar Hires.png The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
For helping me out with the preview button, & sorting the ref on the Anglia page. Once again Thanks. Eagleash (talk) 21:39, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

December 2014 GOCE newsletter[edit]

Guild of Copy Editors December 2014 Newsletter
Writing Magnifying.PNG

Copyeditors progress.png

Drive: Thanks to everyone who participated in November's Backlog Elimination Drive. Of the 43 people who signed up for this drive, 26 copy edited at least one article. Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here.

Progress report: The November Drive removed 26 requests from the Requests page and 509 articles from the {{copy edit}} backlog. We copy edited 83 articles tagged in the target months; July, August, and September 2013. Together with tag removals from articles unsuitable for copy editing, we eliminated July 2013 from the backlog and reduced August and September's tags to 61 and 70 respectively. As of 01:01, 1 December 2014 (UTC), the backlog stood at 1,974 articles, dipping below 2,000 for the first time in the Guild's history (see graph at right). Well done everyone!

Blitz: The December Blitz will run from December 14–20 and will focus on articles related to Religion, in recognition of this month's religious holidays in much of the English-speaking world. Awards will be given out to everyone who copy edits at least one of the target articles. Sign up here!

Election time again: The election of coordinators to serve from 1 January to 30 June 2015 is now underway. Candidates can nominate themselves or others from December 01, 00:01 (UTC), until December 15, 23:59. The voting period will run from December 16, 00:01 (UTC), until December 31, 23:59. You can read about coordinators' duties here. Please consider getting involved and remember to cast you vote—it's your Guild and it doesn't organize itself!

Thank you all once again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve anything without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators Jonesey95, Baffle gab1978, and Miniapolis.

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

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:15, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

GOCE December 2014 blitz[edit]

Modest Barnstar.png The Modest Barnstar
This barnstar is awarded to Jonesey95 for copy edits totaling over 2,000 words during the GOCE December 2014 Copy Editing Blitz. Congratulations, and thank you for your contributions! Miniapolis 23:43, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

GOCE holiday 2014 newsletter[edit]

Guild of Copy Editors Late December 2014 Newsletter
Writing Magnifying.PNG

Blitz: Thanks to everyone who participated in the December Blitz. Of the 14 editors who signed up for the blitz, 11 copyedited at least one article. Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here.

January drive: The January backlog-reduction drive is just around the corner; sign up here!

Election time again: The election of coordinators to serve from January 1 to June 30, 2015 is now underway. The voting period runs from December 16, 00:01 (UTC), until December 31, 23:59. Please cast your vote—it's your Guild, and it doesn't run itself!

Happy holidays from your GOCE coordinators Jonesey95, Baffle gab1978 and Miniapolis.

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

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:44, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

GOCE 2014 report[edit]

Guild of Copy Editors 2014 Annual Report
Writing Magnifying.PNG

Our 2014 Annual Report is now ready for review.

Highlights:

  • Summary of Drives, Blitzes, and the Requests page;
  • Review the election results;
  • Membership news;
  • Changes around the Guild's pages;
  • Plans for 2015.
– Your project 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) 23:55, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Completed GOCE requests[edit]

Hi, Jonesey. I don't know if you were planning to archive your finished requests, but please feel free to do so in future :-). Thanks and all the best, Miniapolis 21:52, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

I was planning to wait a day or so to allow the requester to see the update if it came up on their watchlist, and to give Request page watchers a chance to see that editors are working on requests. I think it looks a little odd when a request just disappears from the page in a Watchlist diff, but maybe that's just me. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:17, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
Baffle also used to archive right away, and it seems to work well; the only time it's best to leave them up there is with new (or over-zealous—i.e. working too fast) copyeditors of GANs or FACs. If you'd rather leave yours, though, that's fine by me (just don't forget to archive 'em eventually :-)). All the best, Miniapolis 14:24, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Sivaji (film)[edit]

I have placed the article under GA reassessment as it was passed in 2008 (almost 7 years back). The reviewer has asked for a GOCE member to do a c/e on the "Plot" and "Release" sections only. Would you like to perform a c/e on them? Face-smile.svgSsven2 speak 2 me 04:36, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

I will be happy to do it. I usually work on GOCE requests in chronological order to be fair to all editors. Please post your request at Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests, and I'll try to get to it when it makes it to the top of the list. Thanks. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:47, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank You :)[edit]

Hello Jonesey95!

Thank you for fixing my recent reference citation.
I am new to Wikipedia but very keen about editing :)
You can brief me with regard to citation as I am very wiling to learn maximum I can.

Thank you:) Pixarh (talk) 14:24, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

You're welcome. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:26, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi[edit]

Thanks for your copyedit on Cynthia Ann Parker. Could you please add the GOCE tag to the articles talk page. Appreciate it.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:40, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Done. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:40, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Auto-Ed[edit]

Doesn't really work for me. Whenever I try to fix template stuff it always says no difference. Any help? Eurodyne (talk) 06:21, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Please provide a link to your script, and I will look at it. Also let me know specifically what you are trying to fix. You can see one of mine here: User:Jonesey95/AutoEd/twoisbnparams.js. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:40, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
I have created User:Eurodyne/AutoEd/twoisbnparams.js. See my User:Eurodyne/common.js and User:Eurodyne/vector.js. Eurodyne (talk) 15:57, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
If the findargdups script is already working for you, remove the AutoEd scripts from vector.js, since you don't need items in both common.js and vector.js.
You are calling my scripts, not your own, since my username is in your common.js. If you feel comfortable maintaining your own scripts, change my username to yours in common.js. If you want to use mine, feel free; you are still responsible for all of your own edits, even if my script has bugs or produces false positives (which some of them do).
Then try running your ISBN script (from the More menu) when visiting the page User:Jonesey95/sandbox3. That page has an ISBN error that is detected and fixed by the script. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:16, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
For some reason, it works on your sandbox page but not on the real article... Eurodyne (talk) 03:08, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
In that case, the article probably does not have an ISBN error that can be fixed by the script. If you link to the article (which is always a good idea when asking for help), I will try to explain specifically why the script is not proposing to change anything. – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:28, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
I looked in Category:Pages with ISBN errors and Category:Pages with citations having redundant parameters and found Bernard Glemser. I used the AutoEd Dual ISBNs button and still no difference. Eurodyne (talk) 03:55, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Bernard Glemser contained the invalid ISBN "55306519X". There is no script that can fix that ISBN; it is only nine digits, and there is no way a script can tell what was intended. You would have to fix the error manually through research or other means.
I designed the script to fix obvious problems with a minimum of false positives. It easily fixes ISBN parameters that list two ISBNs, or that use dashes instead of hyphens, or that precede the ISBN with extraneous text like "13:" or "ISBN". When I created the first version of the script and started using it to process the errors in the category, there were 8,000 articles in the category. I used the script to get that number down to about 2,000, after which all of the easy ones were done. Since then, a group of gnomes has been fixing ISBNs by hand, using research to locate correct ISBNs, replace the ISBNs with other accurate identifiers, or otherwise fix the problems. The 120 remaining article-space pages (aside from the four or five new ones that pop into the category each day) are the stubborn remainder.
In the case of the Glemser article, that erroneous ISBN was sitting in a list of two books that were displaying below the references, in the article for no apparent reason, so I have deleted both of them. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:00, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

thanks[edit]

Hi, thnx for ur editing :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 700ali (talkcontribs) 07:13, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

You're welcome. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:40, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

findargups[edit]

Hi. I want to make sure I'm using the tool correctly. Can you check over my contribs when using the tool? I sometimes wonder which duplicate template argument to remove. Any tips? Eurodyne (talk) 06:39, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

The answer is not always removal of the duplicate parameter. You have to figure out what the original editor intended. Often, the parameter name needs to be changed, not removed entirely. Other times, merging the two parameters together is the right thing to do.
In this edit, you should have changed |goals2= to |goals1= so that each team would have a goal total.
In this edit, you deleted the useful note 1 instead of merging it with note 2 using a line break.
This edit was reasonable. You could have changed the first |location= to "Melbourne, Australia".
In this edit, you broke the name of the |work=.
This edit looks right. You kept the parameter that had more information.
In this edit, I'm guessing that the parameter name should have been changed, not deleted, but I don't know the template well enough to figure it out.
In this edit, the earlier |accessdate= parameters should have been changed to |date=.
This edit and this edit were good.
Thanks for asking for help before you did 100 of them. Please return to the articles and clean up the edits that weren't quite right. I recommend taking more time and looking carefully at the before/after results of your edits to ensure that you have achieved the original editor's intent (to the extent it is possible to figure that out). – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:51, 23 January 2015 (UTC)