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

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.

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)

Blatant canvassing[edit]

Don't forget to say support. EEng (talk) 23:42, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Kindness Barnstar Hires.png The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
Thanks for your understanding and help! I appreciate it a lot! :) 001Jrm (talk) 05:27, 2 August 2014 (UTC)


I'm contacting everyone who has commented but who hasn't taken an explicit Support or Oppose position (or if you did, I missed it). In the interest of bringing this discussion to resolution, it might be helpful if you could do that. Thanks. EEng (talk) 13:00, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

July GOCE drive[edit]

Working Man's Barnstar.png The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar
Thanks, Jonesey, for copyediting a total of 10318 words during the Guild of Copy Editors July 2014 backlog-reduction drive! All the best, Miniapolis 19:01, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Merge discussion for Wagon-wheel effect[edit]


An article that you have been involved in editing, Wagon-wheel effect, has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. (talk) 00:09, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

August 2014 blitz[edit]

Hey Jonesey! The last week of August is approaching. Is that when the August blitz will be, or has the blitz been cancelled? Cheers! Brandon (MrWooHoo)Talk to Brandon! 18:23, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, next week. Real life has prevented me from setting it up. Maybe today. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:16, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

GOCE July drive and August blitz[edit]

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

Participation: Thanks to everyone who participated in the July drive. Of the 40 people who signed up this drive, 22 copy edited at least one article. Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here.

Progress report: We reduced our article backlog from 2400 articles to 2199 articles in July. This is a new month-end record low for the backlog. Nice work, everyone!

Blitz: The August blitz will run from August 24–30. The blitz will focus on articles from the GOCE's Requests page. Awards will be given out to everyone who copy edits at least one of the target articles. The blitz will run from August 24–30. Sign up here!

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) 15:10, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Template:Citation Style documentation/editor[edit]

The error message for four editors shows only if you have .citation-comment {display: inline !important;} /* show all Citation Style 1 error messages */ set in your CSS. It also adds the page to a hidden maintenance category. Not sure if /how to document that. --  Gadget850 talk 22:45, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

So it does. I forgot that one was still hidden. I will comment out the note about the error. Exactly four editors still shows "et al.", as you can see if you log out and look at my Sandbox. We may be able to get rid of that holdover feature once the error category is cleaned out. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:34, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

August GOCE blitz[edit]

Modest Barnstar Hires.png The Modest Barnstar
Thanks for copyediting a total of 3,385 words during the Guild of Copy Editors August blitz! Miniapolis 16:56, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Minor Barnstar Hires.png The Minor barnstar
Thanks for fixing my error on abacus. I normally view the page after I edit to be sure there are no problems...I guess I did not this time. Thanks again. speednat (talk) 18:42, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
You're welcome! It's nice to be noticed. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:09, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

An Odd Issue with Copernicus[edit]

I reverted your edit on the Copernicus page because it caused (or seemed to cause) some weird issue where it vanished the images. Don't know the tool you used, but maybe it needs tweaking? -- Veggies (talk) 23:41, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Veggies, I did not see anything wrong with the page after I edited it, and I still do not see anything wrong when I look at my edited version in the history. Nor do I see anything in my simple edit that could have caused image problems. Did you try to reload the page or WP:PURGE it before reverting? (I recommend one of the purge-related Gadgets.) I find that purging, in particular, fixes many odd display problems. I will redo my edit manually and I will check it again. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:50, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
Very strange. Seems to look fine, now. I'll purge before resetting in the future. What a weird issue. Thanks. -- Veggies (talk) 07:39, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Correcting DOI error[edit]

Could you explain how you fixed this? I see that the DOI error is gone, but I'm not seeing any differences in the dif, just "jeb" highlighted in the previous and current page. Thanks.AioftheStorm (talk) 03:02, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

There was a hidden character of some sort before the "j" in "jeb". I couldn't see it, but I copied the whole DOI to a text editor on my computer and told it to replace all hidden characters with "zzz", and "zzz" popped up in front of the "j". I removed the junk, copied the remaining DOI value, and pasted it back into the article.
I don't see that problem very often, but I do see it often enough in my gnome work that I knew what was wrong when the DOI looked fine to the naked eye. – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:33, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
How interesting, thanks for letting me know :) AioftheStorm (talk) 04:13, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

A VERY THANKFUL barnstar for you![edit]

Kindness Barnstar Hires.png The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
Thanks for your help in editing the new article - Monarch butterfly migration. It needed your touch and I was really stuck in getting it finished off. Thank you! bpage (talk) 20:35, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
You're welcome. Good work on the hard work of writing the article! Expect to see BattyBot stop by the article in the next day or so to clean up some date formatting and do a bit of helpful tidying. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:30, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

LCCN vs. Library of Congress Classification numbers[edit]

Hi. Regarding this recent edit at Georgian numerals — I understand there is a difference between LCCNs and the Library of Congress Classification, and the value you deleted was not in fact an LCCN as intended by the lccn= parameter. However, it seems a shame to discard this piece of information entirely. To the best of your knowledge, is there any legitimate way to include a source's Library of Congress Classification identifier in a {{cite book}} template? And if there is not, should there be? — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 06:40, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

You could put it in |id=, I suppose. Something like |id=LCC PK9106.H48 1995. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:30, 14 September 2014 (UTC)