User talk:Jonesey95

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

First edit[edit]

Thank you for making your first edit, an edit to Godwin's law. Please let me know if I can be of any assistance, and welcome aboard! --SSBohio 05:24, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Zincke nitration[edit]

Nice catch! Thanks. Will ask an admin to make a move over to the redirect.--Stone (talk) 19:30, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

List of Governors of Oregon[edit]

Almost all of those images (I think McCall is the only free one) are fair use images that can only be used in the individual articles. Thus why the list has holes. Aboutmovies (talk) 05:00, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your contribution on talk:congestion pricing[edit]

Thanks for your contribution on talk:congestion pricing. I have however moved your later comment into a separate paragraph to retain clearer threading for the conversation because it is best not to change the meaning or extend an earlier comment subsequent to a response by another person. PeterEastern (talk) 07:49, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Ponda[edit]

Hi, Jonesey95. I just had time to check over the article, and here is a diff showing a few more minor improvements that I made. A couple spots I improved the prose, and the rest are cases where I changed the linking and the capitalisation of a few words. I see you figured out how to post the article to the drive page, as that has been done perfectly. Best wishes. -- Dianna (talk) 23:36, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks[edit]

I have made one complete and about half on the second one.

Yes, I am working my way through the redlinks in the artillery area. I feel that the Japanese equipment, other than ships, has been overlooked. I have added quite a few Japanese engines that were missing as well as a complete list of ships damaged by kamikaze and other suicide type weapons. Buster40004 Talk 06:52, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Fascinating. My grandfather served on a US Navy ship that was hit by a kamikaze plane in WWII. I don't have the details, but I have put in a request for his military records. Jonesey95 (talk) 06:58, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
Take a look at the list here:Allied vessels struck by Japanese special attack weapons. This list is compiled from several sources, and includes cargo, support and ships other than US Navy ships. Buster40004 Talk 17:44, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Sulu Archipelago[edit]

Hi Jonesey95, I'm beginning the copy-edit you requested to the above article at the GOCE Request page. Please feel free to contact me, or to correct or revert my changes if I'm doing something I shouldn't. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 00:00, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Done - the article is chronically under-referenced and I've added tags to all the sections. Anyway, please feel free to contact me about any issues arising from the copy-edit. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 04:12, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
Re: your response on the request page (it'll be removed in a few minutes!) - no worries. :-) Baffle gab1978 (talk) 19:45, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

WV County list[edit]

MANY THANKS! for the copy edit. I think that Charleston as the cap is covered very well in the WV state page as it did migrate a bit in its history, AND that is literally a potential book in and of itself. As to the FIPS codes, I agree, however, the astandard on all of the lists is what is there, BUT I like your idea alot. MUCH appreciate the workCoal town guy (talk) 16:15, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Copyediting[edit]

Hi there! I see you fix general grammar and such and are part of the League of CopyEditors. This may be a long shot here, but would you be interested in giving this article a quick copyedit? It's fairly short, and currently a GAN. You may be busy at the moment and I understand, just thought I'd ask! Creativity97 18:17, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm going to pass for now. I see you posted it on the GOCE Requests page, which is the right thing to do. Someone will get to it. Jonesey95 (talk) 19:18, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
Okay, thanks anyways. Creativity97 00:19, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

List of counties in West Virginia[edit]

Hi there. I saw that you noted on the GOCE request that "Someone else here should make one more pass", so I did that and am about to archive the request. Here's the diff. There's a new {{Clarify}} tag and a note about it on the talk page. Please let me know if I did anything you disagree with. Best regards, --Stfg (talk) 20:50, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

MANY thanks again for your help. I posted a question on the FLC page as I have noted what appears to be a differing/more difficult standard for the FL Counties. I am however very appreciative of all of the help I receiveCoal town guy (talk) 14:49, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

GOCE February 2013 newsletter[edit]

Guild of Copy Editors February 2013 events newsletter
Writing Magnifying.PNG

We are preparing to start our February requests blitz and March backlog elimination drive.

The February 2013 newsletter is now ready for review.

– Your project coordinators: Torchiest, BDD, and Miniapolis

Sign up for the February blitz and March drive! To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 22:46, 16 February 2013 (UTC)


GOCE news: February 2013[edit]

Guild of Copy Editors Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Blitzes/February 2013 wrap-up
Writing Magnifying.PNG

Participation: Out of 19 people who signed up for this blitz, 9 copy-edited at least one article. Thanks to all who participated! Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here.

Progress report: During the six-day blitz, we removed over twenty articles from the requests queue. Hope to see you at the March drive in a few days! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators Torchiest, BDD and Miniapolis.

To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 20:56, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

VERY MUCH appreciate that![edit]

Hey there- The WV county list FL was indeed a group effort and I could not have done that without alot of folks helping. I am very appreciative.Coal town guy (talk) 13:42, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

This England (album)[edit]

Thanks for correcting the typo you discovered here. Out of curiosity, are you editing the article on behalf of the GOCE? --Another Believer (Talk) 15:10, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

I looked at it because it was on the Requests page, but I'm not taking it on yet. I'm pretty busy for the next couple of days, but I'll take a look at it in early March. It's short, so it should not be a problem. Good job on the COI notice. Jonesey95 (talk) 16:09, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
No problem, just wondering. Thanks, and thanks! --Another Believer (Talk) 16:39, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you so much for the thorough review. I went ahead and added the GOCE template to the article's talk page. I hope that is okay. Your time and assistance is appreciated. --Another Believer (Talk) 15:04, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

GOCE mid-March 2013 newsletter[edit]

Guild of Copy Editors March 2013 backlog elimination drive mid-drive newsletter
Writing Magnifying.PNG

We are halfway through our March backlog elimination drive.

The mid-drive newsletter is now ready for review.

– Your project coordinators: Torchiest, BDD, and Miniapolis

Sign up for the March drive! To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 14:21, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Happy Easter!!![edit]

Happy Easter!

So a print encyclopedia, a strawberry shortcake, and a sycamore walk into a bar - wait, have you heard this one? (talk) 22:49, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

The .png for the drive page[edit]

Hi. Thanks for doing that. The slight blur didn't bother me, but is it sharper now I've removed the 260px value from it? Cheers, --Stfg (talk) 18:47, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

No, it's still blurry. The 260px was my best attempt at a hack to make the image render at the same size as the original box. I suppose with font differences, YMMV, but the image at Commons is sharp. Compare to the original table, or to the original screen shot that I uploaded to the commons: commons:File:GoCE_March_2013_results.png. Jonesey95 (talk) 19:03, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
Ah, I see. The file's image width is actually 274px, but I think the problem may be with the use of thumb. I've taken that out -- how does it look now? Wikipedia:Picture tutorial#Thumbnail sizes is a thumb-ping good read, by the way. --Stfg (talk) 20:13, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
Still fuzzy, and now it's missing the caption. I did read through that page. Hmmm. Jonesey95 (talk) 02:21, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
Sorry about that. Last year we never bothered with captions, so I didn't even notice it. I've restored "thumb" now to redisplay the caption, and now I'll stop tinkering. Cheers, --Stfg (talk) 09:41, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

GOCE March 2013 newsletter[edit]

Guild of Copy Editors March 2013 backlog elimination drive wrap-up newsletter
Writing Magnifying.PNG

We have completed our March backlog elimination drive.

The drive wrap-up newsletter is now ready for review.

– Your project coordinators: Torchiest, BDD, and Miniapolis

Sign up for the April blitz! To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 19:21, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Joseph Schwantner: New Morning for the World; Nicolas Flagello: The Passion of Martin Luther King[edit]

Thank you for taking the time to copy edit this article. I responded to your comments on the talk page. I like your edits to the prose (thanks!), but I removed semicolons from the Personnel section. In the album's liner notes, symbols indicate which musicians performed on select tracks for each instrumentation, so I used the same format here (track numbers following each instrument, if applicable). I hope this makes sense and that you find my edits agreeable. Please let me know if any other concerns need to be addressed or if you are not satisfied for any reason. Thanks. --Another Believer (Talk) 15:39, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

When you have a moment, please see the two questions at the bottom of the article's talk page. I am wondering if the "revised" version should be mentioned, and whether or not it would be okay to merge the three Passion-related paragraphs into one. Thank you. --Another Believer (Talk) 16:36, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

RE:Showdown (Cheers)[edit]

Citations 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, and 15 are either offline print sources or inaccessible online sources. The "requires url=" is not appearing on my PC, but there's nothing I can do about it. --George Ho (talk) 23:55, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

GOCE April 2013 newsletter[edit]

Guild of Copy Editors April 2013 events newsletter
Writing Magnifying.PNG

We finished the April blitz and are preparing to start our May backlog elimination drive.

The April 2013 events newsletter is now ready for review.

– Your project coordinators: Torchiest, BDD, and Miniapolis

Sign up for the May drive! To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 04:11, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

GOCE Coordinator?[edit]

Are you interested in becoming a coordinator for the Guild? You're already helping out a good amount, and I think you've got a good head on your shoulders and would make a good fit. Nominations for the second half of 2013 take place in the first half of June, so you've got a week or three to think about it. Cheers. —Torchiest talkedits 12:48, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

What are the responsibilities? Are they listed somewhere? I'll be away for a few days; I'll give you an answer when I return. Jonesey95 (talk) 14:06, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
Pretty much all the information about it is at WP:GOCE/COORD and WP:GOCE/COORD/TASKS. —Torchiest talkedits 15:21, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
Have you come to a decision on it, Jonesey? I was just thinking of maybe asking to nominate you, when I came across this. You've been helping the Guild out very nicely up till now, and I think you'd ease into coordinatorship without any difficulty. Cheers, --Stfg (talk) 12:56, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
Ganging up on me, eh? OK, I'll give it a shot. I've been doing some of the stuff anyway. As soon as I saw that I wasn't responsible for dispute resolution, I was in. I get enough DR in real life. I don't need more of it on the internet. Jonesey95 (talk) 05:23, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, it's the same all over -- you do something useful and you get ganged up on for it. Well, the deed is done. Thanks for agreeing to stand. --Stfg (talk) 10:09, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

GOCE May drive wrap-up[edit]

Guild of Copy Editors May 2013 backlog elimination drive wrap-up newsletter
Writing Magnifying.PNG

We have completed our May backlog elimination drive.

The drive wrap-up newsletter is now ready for review.

– Your project coordinators: Torchiest, BDD, and Miniapolis

Sign up for the June blitz! To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 04:41, 5 June 2013 (UTC)


GOCE June/July 2013 events[edit]

Guild of Copy Editors July 2013 backlog elimination drive wrap-up newsletter
Writing Magnifying.PNG

We have completed our June blitz and are about to commence our July backlog elimination drive.

The June/July 2013 events newsletter is now ready for review.

– Your project coordinators: Torchiest, BDD, and Miniapolis

Sign up for the July drive! To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 20:06, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Coordinators[edit]

Not sure if you already have that page on your watchlist, but that's where we discuss newsletters and other organization issues. Cheers. —Torchiest talkedits 02:40, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

GOCE July 2013 news report[edit]

Guild of Copy Editors July 2013 backlog elimination drive mid-drive newsletter
Writing Magnifying.PNG
  • Participation: Out of 30 people who have signed up for this drive so far, 18 have participated. If you have signed up for the drive but have not yet participated, it isn't too late. If you haven't signed up for the drive, sign up now!
We Can Do It!.jpg
  • Progress report: Thus far we have reduced the number of May/June 2012 articles to just 124 articles, so we're on the right track. Unfortunately, for the first time in GOCE history, the number of articles in the backlog has actually gone up during this drive. While all participants are currently doing a fine job, we just don't have as many of them as we have had in the past. We have over 500 editors on our mailing list, but only 18 editors who have done a copy edit for the drive. If you're receiving this newsletter, it's because you have an interest in copy editing. Join the drive! Even if you only copy edit one article, it helps. Imagine how much progress we could make if everyone chipped in just one article.

– Your drive coordinators: Torchiest, Baffle gab1978, Jonesey95, and The Utahraptor.

>>> Sign up now <<<

To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 21:51, 21 July 2013 (UTC)


WP:GOCE July backlog leaderboard awards[edit]

Thank you very much for the Leaderboard Awards for the July GOCE backlog drive! I had a blast, & I'm looking forward to the next one! (& I'm already signed up for the August blitz!) Question: I thought, according to the WP:GOCE July backlog drive leaderboard awards, the first place in each category was going to be a "Gold" award, & the "Silver" award was for "the remaining Leaderboard slots in each category"? I finished with 3 firsts, 1 second & 1 fourth, & all my awards were silver. (Or did one editor need to finish in the highest slot in all 5 categories to "go for the Gold"?) JudyCS (talk) 01:51, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

My apologies, especially after all of your hard work! This is my first month as coordinator, so I'm learning as I go. I have replaced your silver stars with the appropriate gold stars, which you unmistakably merit. Jonesey95 (talk) 03:29, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the update! & no problem -- I don't know how you coordinators manage it all. My kudos to you! JudyCS (talk) 06:22, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Reply[edit]

I've removed Barfi! and The Great Gatsby (2013 film), as I have nominated the former article for peer review and the latter needs more work. Thanks for notifying.----Plea$ant 1623 16:27, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

GOCE July 2013 copy edit drive wrap-up[edit]

Guild of Copy Editors July 2013 backlog elimination drive wrap-up newsletter
Writing Magnifying.PNG

We have completed our July backlog elimination drive.

The drive wrap-up newsletter is now ready for review.

– Your project coordinators: Torchiest, Baffle gab1978, Jonesey95, and The Utahraptor.

Sign up for the August blitz! To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 22:56, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Re:Guild of Copy Editors' Requests page[edit]

Sorry, I have not noticed the alert. I already did it, but actually I only hid the resquest so I can retrive it later; is it ok?. Thanks to advise. Cheers, Gabriel Yuji (talk) 00:10, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

It would be better if you removed them entirely and placed them in your own User page or a Sandbox page as reminders to yourself. Since the Requests page is edited by many people, your commented sections are likely to be removed by another editor. When you post these requests after your current requests are done, please post them at the bottom of the list. We try to go in chronological order to be fair to all requesters. Thanks. I'm looking forward to copyediting your articles. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:15, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
One of Gabriel's requests has been fulfilled tonight. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 04:56, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
Done. Sorry for the inconvenience. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 05:30, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Articles[edit]

[moved from a Talk subpage] Looking for an appropriate place to further discuss Dubbing (filmmaking) proposed changes, especially regarding removing "Global use" section (How do I designate that in Edit Source to link it?) and creating a new article or merging it with an alternate (appropriate) article. Is this page okay for this purpose? JourneySarah (talk) 04:04, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

I think a good way to start would be to create a Sandbox article. I've started one: User:Jonesey95/sandbox/Global_use_of_dubbing. Edit this article until you think it's ready to be published. We'll need a short summary of the Global use article to replace the long Global use section in the Dubbing article. I've created a placeholder for that.
Once the sandbox article is "done", we can create it in the main article space and shorten the Dubbing article. – Jonesey95 (talk) 02:19, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
Excellent. I will work on the sandbox page you created. Thank you. : ) JourneySarah (talk) 02:48, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Bot reports[edit]

Thanks for all your bot reports! I appreciate you filling out the templates and giving just the right level of detail for me to easily diagnose and triage the problems – it's never usually this easy! Cheers, Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 06:08, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome. Thanks for the bot. I find it very useful in cleaning up citations. – Jonesey95 (talk) 12:44, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

GOCE Blitz wrap-up and September 2013 drive invitation[edit]

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

Participation: Out of sixteen people who signed up for this blitz, nine 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 26 articles from the requests queue. Hope to see you at the September drive in a few days! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators Torchiest, Baffle gab1978, Jonesey95 and The Utahraptor.

Sign up for the September drive!
To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 01:22, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Edit[edit]

Not sure why this change [1]? The refs should have a consistent format. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 15:27, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I have been fixing errors on pages in Category:Pages using citations with old-style implicit et al. and did not notice this formatting difference. Most articles I have seen have a broad mix of citation formats; fixing this error with a cite doi template does not make those articles worse. I have replaced the cite doi template with a cite journal template that fixes the original problem while maintaining the format. If I made any minor errors, feel free to clean them up. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:12, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

GOCE July Copy Edit of the Month Gold![edit]

Goce barnstar.png The Guild of Copy Editors' Award
Thanks for your submission to the July 2013 Copy Edit of the Month contest, and congratulations! For your work on Jeffrey Alfred Legum, you've earned the Gold. Great job! —Torchiest talkedits 22:41, 1 September 2013 (UTC)


GOCE Help![edit]

Hi! I saw your name on the leader board. I am new in copyediting through GOCE, so please could you help me out??? The problem I am facing is that I signedup of GOcE, but dont know how to edit so my work can also be tracked in the leaderboard... After signing-up, I did some editing, but it did not show up on the leaderboard... I think so, Im missing any step. Eagerly waiting to hear for you soon. Regards, Martinian (talk) 04:05, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

The leaderboard is not automated. You update it yourself. You also update your article list yourself. The basic procedure is: pick an article that is tagged with the copyedit tag, use the Page Size script (or another reasonable method) to count the words, copy edit the article, remove the copyedit tag, then put the name of the article and the word count in the "Completed" list in your section. Add *O after the name if the article is "old" (from June or July 2012 during this drive) or *R after the name if it is from the Requests list (I recommend getting some practice with regular articles before diving into the Requests list). If you are a leader in any of the categories, add your user name and the appropriate number (of words or articles) to the correct spot in the table.
As with all editing on Wikipedia, use the Preview button a lot to see if you're doing it right, and look at other people's sections to see examples of proper formatting. Thanks for participating! – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:54, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Talk:The Swarm (roller coaster)/GA1[edit]

Jonesey95, your review of this article seems to have stalled; I was wondering whether you were planning on coming back to it at some point. I've just made some comments, since I was there checking on the review hiatus, but was only looking at a few issues. Please return to the review soon; if you can't, then please post something there so the review isn't indefinitely delayed. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:39, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

It was not clear to me that I was supposed to do anything else. I just put some comments on this review page after performing a copy edit on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors. I was not intending to sign up as a reviewer, having never done so before and having not read the criteria thoroughly. I'll make a note on the review page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:16, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 18[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited T. G. Waterhouse, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Walter Bagot (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:53, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

And a barnstar for you...[edit]

WikiLink Barnstar Hires.png The Wikilink Barnstar
...because one user had repaired more than 5,000 articles over a period of several months.[1]

References
1.^ [[User:Jonesey95|Jonesey]] receives award! BBC News Wikipedian is honoured for ceaseless work on thousands of articles to remove... Wikilink embedded in URL title (help)

Well, if I deserve one, you certainly do. Many congratulations for taking on such a huge task – and finishing it! Glad I was of some help towards the end. Shame about the talk/archive/project pages that are left, but at least all the article pages are now cleaned up; the category should at least be maintainable now. Best wishes,  GILO   A&E 18:26, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, doc! I love the citation above.
I've got a request in to change the behavior of the Citation CS1 module so that it displays the wikilink and similar errors on Talk pages but does not put them in the error Categories. I believe that this change will be implemented relatively soon, which will make these error categories much cleaner. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:48, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Kiwanis Edit[edit]

Jdzarlino (talk)Thank you for the edit on our Kiwanis page. Can you help me enter up to date information. Our new year starts in a few days and I am waiting on a call back from HQ today with up to date data. I know our membership will increase by one today. Kiwanis ROCKS! :) Please advise. Thank you. Kiwanis2015 (talk) 17:40, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

You should be able to edit the page yourself, if you know how (click the "Edit" link for the section that you want to change). If you need help with inserting links, citations, or other fancy stuff, let me know. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:58, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

You are welcome[edit]

I noticed that the list was going down faster than I was fixing them, but I had no idea who was working on them. Usually it goes the opposite way... I fix 5, and the number drops 2. Thanks for the help. Quebec99 (talk) 14:31, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it's a tiny bit frustrating to be unable to see the previous state of a category to see who fixed articles that are now missing. I've resorted to taking screen shots or text captures, laboriously comparing before/after captures to find a missing article, and then figuring out who worked on the missing article. That person's Contributions list is usually full of similar fixes. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:35, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

GOCE Drive & rollover words[edit]

Thank you very much for the barnstars, Jonesey95! I had a blast! & thank you for all your hard work & coordination efforts! Question regarding rollover words: September 2013 was only my 2nd (so far!) Drive, & therefore my first "rollover words" occasion. For this drive, I finished with 173,509 total words. All articles were *O Older & *R Requests. So, 173,509 + 86,754.5 (50% bonus) + 57,725 rollover words (fm. July 2013) = 317,988.5 - 100,000 Caretaker's Star ... does this mean I'll have 217,988.5 rollover words going into November 2013 Drive?? How does that work? (Math makes my head dizzy!) JudyCS (talk) 04:25, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

You do math well too! You got it exactly right. You can see calculations for everyone here. Our barnstars and rollover math are not really set up for people who edit hundreds of thousands of words. Just keep rolling over. Maybe in November we'll have to find a special 250,000-word barnstar for you or something. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:29, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Thank you very much for the clarification, Jonesey95! Math gives me a major headache -- that's why I work with words! I appreciate all of you guys & all your hard work! JudyCS (talk) 04:55, 3 October 2013 (UTC)


Thanks[edit]

Hello Jonesey95. Thanks for fixing the "unnamed citation parameter" problem at Sydling St Nicholas. I hadn't been able to work out why the red text was there. I see you've fixed more than just that page; can you tell me why introducing "%7c" fixes the problem without spoiling the web address? Thanks. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 19:16, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

The "%7c" is a substitute for the "|" character (sometimes called a pipe or vertical bar). Either one works fine in a URL (web address), but when a URL containing "|" is included in a Wikipedia cite template like {{cite web}}, the template interprets the "|" as "here comes a new template parameter" (e.g. "title" or "author"). So a URL like http://www.foo.bar/foo.php?file=14|name=bar|show=yes, which is perfectly valid, looks like this in a cite web template (note that the end of the URL is cut off):
http://www.foo.bar/foo.php?file=14.  Unknown parameter |show= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |name= ignored (|author= suggested) (help); Missing or empty |title= (help)
If you substitute "%7c" for each "|" in the URL, the cite template sees the whole URL as you intended:
http://www.foo.bar/foo.php?file=14%7cname=bar%7cshow=yes.  Missing or empty |title= (help)
I left the title parameters out of the above citations so that you could see the difference in the URLs. The "unknown parameter" error is displayed for citations when there is a set of | characters without an equals sign (=) somewhere between them.
And one more slightly confusing thing: If you have a "title" or other non-url parameter with "|" characters in it, like "title=Review: Oscar-nominated movies | The Film Geek Web Site", that also leads to the error above. In that case, you need to substitute &#124; for each "|" character. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:41, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
Thanks! I assume that %7c and &#124; are programming lingo? PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 20:55, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
Pretty much. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:05, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

John Eliot Gardiner[edit]

How is it possible that this article is B-class, yet it is biographical and needs more citations? George8211 conversations 08:43, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't know anything about the article. I just fixed a tiny error on the page. I suggest that you take a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Biography/Assessment#Quality_scale, suggest your own assessment on the Talk page, improve the article, or some combination of the above. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:00, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Mike Pierce[edit]

Hi! Can you explain in the simplest form of what my error was toward my edit? I'm not an advanced user, so whatever was done was unintentional and maybe we can correct it to still have the edit up? Thanks! – edit by 80.67.17.247, 03:57, 17 October 2013 (UTC) (time stamp added by Jonesey95 because this user's edit added a bunch of extraneous text to the section above)

It looks like you intended to add a few words, but something that you did caused the first part of each of the web addresses in the references to be removed. If you click View History on that page and compare your version with the one before, you'll get a screen that looks like this. The highlighted text on the left side is what you deleted (inadvertently, no doubt), and the highlights text on the right is what you tried to add. I reverted the whole edit because of the errors it introduced, and because you did not provide a source for your statement.
Strangely, when you tried to edit this Talk page, you introduced errors into the section above the one you added. You can use View History on this page and compare your final version with the version before you started editing.
I don't know what web browser or other software you are using to edit Wikipedia pages, but something is going wrong. You might ask for help at the Wikipedia:Help desk. Make sure to click the New Section button when posting a question. You can refer them to Jonesey95's Talk page if you want them to see what you're trying to explain. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:06, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Canola - citations[edit]

Hi, Jonesey95. I invariably get something wrong with the citations, usually as I normally copy another citation and then replace the elements. Thanks for the touch-up. Where can I find an explanation of what goes where - for example the change that you made from "web" to "encyclopaedia"? Also, sometimes I see the various elements (author, date, url, etc) each in a separate line, other times all in a row - why is that? Is the one a more recent practice to be used in preference to the other? Thanks for your help. Regards, Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 08:18, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Placing the parameters on separate lines is something that some editors do to make things look neat and tidy while editing. It makes no difference in how the Wikipedia article looks. The software that displays the page is supposed to compress all "white space" (spaces, tabs, and new lines) into a single space, and it usually does.
I changed "cite web" to "cite encyclopedia" (which still might not be the perfect choice, but it worked) because the citation in question was citing an entry within a larger work, as you do with an encyclopedia. If you want to dig in to some different types of citations and how the parameters work, Help:Citation_Style_1 is a good place to start. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:52, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
Hi, Jonesey95. A belated thank you. You answered all my 3 questions succintly and productively. Best regards, Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 23:49, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

GOCE September 2013 drive wrap-up[edit]

Guild of Copy Editors September 2013 backlog elimination drive wrap-up newsletter
Writing Magnifying.PNG

The September 2013 drive wrap-up is now ready for review.
Sign up for the October blitz!

– Your project coordinators: Torchiest, Baffle gab1978, Jonesey95 and The Utahraptor.

To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 04:06, 18 October 2013 (UTC)


GOCE Blitz wrap-up; join us for the November drive[edit]

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

Participation: Out of eleven 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 copy edited 42 articles from WikiProject Film's backlog, reducing it by a net of 34 articles. Hope to see you at the November drive in a few days! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators Torchiest, Baffle gab1978, Jonesey95 and The Utahraptor.

Sign up for the November drive!
To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 17:16, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

RE: Billboard Brasil ISSN[edit]

Hi. The ISSN number is a fixed identifier of a publication recognized internationally, and that number is the identifier of the Brazilian billboard. I don't have the magazine last month, as I also do not have some other as confer the hot 100 in Brazil in the billboard biz site and to ensure, after i use to borrowing the magazine and confer positions plus some sites for ever include true information because I really like the Brazilian chart and no fake things. bye. Thissz (talk) 03:30, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Thissz, is it possible that you are typing in the bar code (UPC) on the front of the magazine? That is different from an ISSN. ISSN codes are supposed to be only eight numbers. Can you provide a link, a photo, or a scan that shows the code that you are using? I expect that it is on the outside of the magazine or on the masthead. Thanks. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:20, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Editing my changes to the nuclear testing pages[edit]

Hello. I read the comment you left with the removal of the italics that I added to the inforbox; I did so because I thought that was the right theing to do, but I repect your greater experience in doing such editing . In the pages I added my table data to late yesterday, I refrained from touching the infobox, and will continue to do so into the future. I will remove the italics operators on the bixes I did earlier as other edits move me to do so, or you are welcome to do so (fancy that - my permission to edit wiki pages!). Thanks for your help. SkoreKeep (talk) 16:13, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're talking about. I believe that you are referring to this edit of Operation Fishbowl. As you can see from the diff, all I did was replace a : with an = in the citation in order to make it work properly. If you are referring to a different edit, please let me know. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:14, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

GOCE[edit]

Thanks for the swift response on the talk page. May I also point out that your 546 reviews seems a little ambitious article number wise(!)? Thanks, Matty.007 16:25, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

What, you think I can't copy edit 546 articles in a month? Well, you're probably right. We do have one editor who has done that many in a month (and may do a few hundred this month), but I am not that good. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:52, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
That could be this month's target! Matty.007 18:43, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Deprecated year parameter?[edit]

Where was the consensus reached to make this change? I have started a discussion here. The year parameter is widely used and I see no reason to deprecate it. Boghog (talk) 07:19, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

|month= is deprecated, and |year= does not accept days or months, so I used |date= to accommodate both parameters' values. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:38, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
Sorry for confusion. I now understand that it is the month and not year parameter that is deprecated, although I still don't see why it necessary to deprecate the month parameter. In addition, I believe it is a mistake to concatenate the year and month into a single date parameter since this can easily lead to inconsistently rendered dates and thereby defeat one the primary reasons why citation templates are used in the first place. Rather than concatenate, I think it is better to delete the month entirely and leave the year parameter as is. Finally there are an enormous number of citations in articles that use the month parameter and hence the month parameter will be retained for backwards compatibility for the foreseeable future. Why fix something that isn't broken? Boghog (talk) 18:24, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
I don't know why or when |month= was deprecated from citations.
Regarding deleting the month data entirely: my approach to fixing citation errors has always been to preserve as much of the citation's information as possible. I do delete text when it is clearly redundant or incorrect, but if a previous editor has gone to the trouble of entering a month of publication for a journal article, I see no harm in preserving it and potential harm in removing it.
Regarding inconsistently rendered dates: welcome to Wikipedia. Even our Manual of Style section on date formats allows for multiple date formats (although within a single article, dates are supposed to be rendered consistently). – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:36, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
To ask an obvious question, if you don't why |month= was deprecated from citations, why do you find it necessary to remove the parameter? Boghog (talk) 20:17, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
I do not know the reasons behind many of the consensus decisions that have been made on Wikipedia, but I respect the process that led to those decisions and assume that everyone documenting those decisions and implementing the results of those decisions is acting in good faith. I prefer to avoid the discussion/argument portions of WP and stick to fixing problems. The community has identified citation problems that are categorized in Category:Articles_with_incorrect_citation_syntax; I'm working on fixing those problems. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:51, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
Your assumption that consensus has been reached to make this change may be in error. I have asked where the consensus for this change was made and so far no one has supplied me an answer. Before making additional changes, this needs to be discussed further. Boghog (talk) 20:59, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Memory Erasure Template[edit]

Yes I did indeed intend to expand the article Memory erasure. I thought that I was working in my sandbox currently and then I was going to expand the article after I was finished adding the information. If this is the incorrect approach to take I would greatly appreciate you helping in taking the correct path. I moved my article out of the Sandbox into what i thought was the correct page to move it too but it appears i added it to Memory Erasure instead of Memory erasure. Youre help would be much appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mbirdsell3 (talkcontribs) 23:54, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

e-mail[edit]

I sent an e-mail to you a few days ago. Not sure if you received it though. Let me know. Thanks. —Torchiest talkedits 01:25, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

I received it but have been out of town. I am honored and leaning toward saying yes to your proposal, but give me another day or two to think about it please. – Jonesey95 (talk) 06:00, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
Torchiest, I will be happy to be nominated as the GOCE lead coordinator. Thanks for thinking of me. I have a couple of ideas for things I'd like to improve, mostly housekeeping/operational items to make sure that we do the things we say we're going to do. Other than that, I figure I'll keep doing the things I've been doing: daily updates during the drives, setting up new drive pages, barnstars for drives and blitzes, and the various other housekeeping tasks that the coords do. I have no grand plans to make big changes; I think the GOCE is a well-run wikiproject that attracts good editors and does good work. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:07, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
Great! I'll finish preparing the election page and open it up for nominations this weekend. —Torchiest talkedits 14:20, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

ISSN[edit]

Hi, what's wrong with this and this ISSN? --Eleassar my talk 22:25, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

See ISSN for an explanation. Valid ISSNs contain eight numeric digits, or seven numeric digits followed by an X. The letters "Y" and "C" are not allowed in ISSNs. I have been fixing ISSNs over the last couple of weeks, and I have been able to find valid ISSNs for the vast majority of periodicals. Where I am unable to find a valid ISSN for something that looks like it might have one, I comment out the ISSN so that the original information is not lost. If you can find a valid ISSN for these publications, please add one. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:19, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
These ISSNs have been copied from reliable sources (COBISS 116333056, [2]), it seems that the Slovenes are using invalid issn numbers all across... What makes you think then than they're not valid - perhaps the article at Wikipedia is incorrect or these are exceptions? --Eleassar my talk 08:35, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
Your COBISS link shows a valid ISSN after the first invalid one. I have put that in the article. Your second link shows an invalid ISSN (invalid according to everything I have ever read). I can't explain that, except to say that someone appears to have made a mistake, or perhaps the Slovenes have a different "ISSN" system that does not conform with the international standard. If you can find documentation that shows these Slovene ISSNs to be valid numbers, let me know.
Slovenian publications are not using invalid ISSNs across the board. See this one, for example.
I have fixed ISSNs in a little over 1,000 articles, and I have found a number of cases in which the publication itself lists an invalid ISSN. People make mistakes. I do my best to locate a valid ISSN, even if the publication itself does not know its own ISSN. If I can't find one, I comment out the invalid one and sometimes leave a note. See this diff, for example. I will also sometimes leave a replacement identifier, like an OCLC number, that provides the same service as an ISSN (i.e. a link to Worldcat). – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:50, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
Ok, thank you. I don't think there is a separate standard for Slovene sources, so unless the standard changed at some time, these must be mistakes. However, when they're published in databases as ok (like C501-8889), I don't see why we should omit them here: they're still useful in finding the sources. --Eleassar my talk 21:38, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Category:CS1 errors: dates[edit]

Hello Jonesey95, yes, I would like help making that error message visible to myself. Jc3s5h mentioned the instructions for adjusting your style sheet so you can see all the error messages, yes, I saw in Category:CS1 errors: dates that I have to update my common or skin CSS stylesheet, but that is non-existent at the moment. Could you help me out? Thank you! Starship.paint (talk) 02:16, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Ugh, sorry to bother. I happened to look at Jc3s5h's user contributions right after I posted it, and I copied his actions to add the script to my User:Starship.paint/common.css. Perhaps could you double-check my script, but it seems to be working for me now. Sorry to bother! Starship.paint (talk) 02:27, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
It looks like you did it right. Do you see the error messages now? Check the References in 10th Air Base Wing. You should see two red errors that look like "Check date values in: |archivedate=, |accessdate=". – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:57, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I see them. Thank you! Starship.paint (talk) 01:43, 5 December 2013 (UTC)


November 2013 GOCE drive wrap-up[edit]

Guild of Copy Editors November 2013 backlog elimination drive wrap-up newsletter
Writing Magnifying.PNG

The November 2013 drive wrap-up is now ready for review.
Sign up for the December blitz!

– Your project coordinators: Torchiest, Baffle gab1978, Jonesey95 and The Utahraptor.

To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:22, 5 December 2013 (UTC)


Thanks[edit]

Original Barnstar Hires.png The Original Barnstar
Thank you very much for responding to my request of a copyedit on Outlaw Run so quickly. It is greatly appreciated. Keep up the good work. Themeparkgc  Talk  07:18, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for citation fix![edit]

You must use some kind of automation to find so many little errors. Mine was using an obsolete "coauthors" parameter in a citation (it's still included in a Google books citation generator tool). I'm glad to know of the issue and wanted to thank you for your efforts. Agyle (talk) 22:47, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Errors like this one are listed in the subcategories of Category:Articles with incorrect citation syntax. The error messages and category assignments are generated automatically by the module that converts templates like {{cite book}} to citations in a readable format. I have been working since April 2013 to fix errors in many thousands of these articles and templates. Thanks for the note of appreciation.
Can you provide a link to the Google Books citation generator tool? I'd like to look at it to see if I can recommend a way to avoid using the "coauthors" parameter. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:45, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Sinophobia[edit]

Thanks for letting me know, that I had mis-interpreted the reference. Bladesmulti (talk) 07:11, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Are you good at copyediting?[edit]

If you are, I need help with one article. Let me know, I will be checking your talk page for a while. Bladesmulti (talk) 17:33, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

I think a quick look over Jonesey's talk page will show you that (he has lots of appreciation)... Thanks, Matty.007 17:41, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
I have talk page stalkers? Yikes.
The Guild of Copy Editors' Requests page is a great place to request copyediting help with articles. I do not take individual requests, since I never know when I'll have time to do a good job with an article and do not want to make that commitment. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:36, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks! I was unaware about such wiki page. Bladesmulti (talk) 06:58, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
In reply to the TPS thing, I only reply to other people's posts on others' talk pages occasionally... Best, Matty.007 20:25, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
No problem. I was just surprised that anyone was lurking here. I appreciate your answer. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:48, 18 December 2013 (UTC)


Thank you[edit]

Thank you for the compliment. You have to love these 3 fixes. Each and every one of them. Debresser (talk) 02:15, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

We're down to 49 templates. That is less than half. Debresser (talk) 02:16, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Down to 21. A null-edit to {{Cite conference}} will take care of another one, as will (likely) the deletion nomination of Template:Skeleton novel. And allowing |publisher= and |institution= will also remove one. Allowing ranges for the date parameter will take care of all of the remaining ones. Debresser (talk) 11:02, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Stellar work. I fixed a couple more. Now the only ones left are the ones with date ranges. {{cite conference}} will be cleared by the job queue sometime in the next month or so. It's conceivable that we can get to zero. Exciting. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:31, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:On Wikipedia, solutions are mixtures and nothing else[edit]

Sorry, I don't dispute that this is an essay, but I'm much confused about why this page refers to chemical solutions when the majority of the advertising corporations put on New Page Patrol refer to what I believe to be business solutions. Because of this, I was led to believe that this was actually some sort of joke. In any case, the {{humor}} tag could apply to essays as it could apply to about anything else; in fact we have the {{humorous essay}} tag for essays specifically. TeleComNasSprVen (talkcontribs) 16:21, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

The essay has one and a half sentences that are attempts at humor. The rest of it is an essay that provides useful guidance on dealing with a slang term that appears in Wikipedia articles. I added a sentence to clarify the paragraph with the humor in it. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:48, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

CITEREF[edit]

To see CITEREF all you have to do is import a java script. See User:Ucucha/HarvErrors -- PBS (talk) 00:30, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

1000+ templates[edit]

Just today the job queue delivered 1000+ templates to the error category that you showed me the catscan report for. Most, I guess over 95%, can be fixed by a bot. Do you know of any bot that can do this and how to divert this bot to those templates? Debresser (talk) 03:00, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

They are almost all cite doi and cite pmid templates. I fixed about 200 of them today and was just planning to crank through them over the next week or so. I have an AutoEd script that merges the month and year parameters into a date parameter, which will take care of about 90% of them. The rest appear to be malformed dates, and there could be a few in there with |coauthors=, but I'm guessing just a tiny handful. Trappist the monk and GoingBatty have access to an AWB script that should be able to fix most of the dates. If they happen to stop by, here's a link to the catscan report. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:43, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
I looked at the ones in Category:CS1 errors: dates and was able to fix almost 50 of the cite doi/pmid templates. The rest have year ranges or multiple dates, which I'll defer to you. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 06:47, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
The couple of pages in the catscan listed that I looked at had |month= and |year= parameters. The AWB script at User:Trappist the monk/CS1 deprecated parameters (AWB) is designed to concatenate |day=/|date= with |month= and |year= into |date=. When I return in a week or so it's my intention to robotize the script. If you're going to be correcting these kinds of errors, using the AWB script would be beneficial to me because you might find bugs in it that I haven't.
Trappist the monk (talk) 10:50, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
Trappist the monk and GoingBatty: Thanks to both of you. Fixing the dates was what I was hoping for. Most of the cite templates in the list have month and year that need to be merged, which the AWB date script does not currently do, but which my AutoEd script does with relative ease. Unfortunately, I do not have the technology required to use AWB, otherwise I'd love to be a part of that work. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:54, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
I have fixed all of these templates. To all a good night!Jonesey95 (talk) 06:43, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
That is incredible. Do you have any idea when the CS1 module will be updated to allow for date and year ranges? That should remove all remaining instances there. Debresser (talk) 08:48, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

GOCE December 2013 Blitz wrap-up and January Drive invitation[edit]

December Notes from the Guild of Copy Editors
Writing Magnifying.PNG

The December blitz ran from December 8–14. The theme for this blitz was articles tied in some way to religion. Seven editors knocked out 20 articles over the course of the week. Our next blitz will be in February, with a theme to be determined. Feel free to make theme suggestions at the Guild talk page!

The January 2014 Backlog elimination drive is a month-long effort to reduce the size of the copy edit backlog. The drive begins on January 1 at 00:00 (UTC) and ends on January 31 at 23:59 (UTC). Our goals are to copy edit all articles tagged in October and November 2012 and complete all requests placed before the end of 2013. Barnstars will be awarded to anyone who copy edits at least one article, and special awards will be given to the top five in the following categories: "Number of articles", "Number of words", "Number of articles of over 5,000 words", "Number of articles tagged in October and November 2012", and "Longest article". We hope to see you there!

GOCE Coordinator.png

Coordinator election: Voting is open for candidates to serve as GOCE coordinators from 1 January through 30 June 2014. Voting will run until the end of December. For complete information, please have a look at the election page.

– Your drive coordinators: Torchiest, Baffle gab1978, Jonesey95 and The Utahraptor

To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Message delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:25, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Please comment[edit]

Please comment at Template_talk:Medieval_Lands_by_Charles_Cawley#hiding_the_template.27s_output. Debresser (talk) 01:04, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Template protection RFC[edit]

Hi,

Based on discussion I was currently having with others, I switched this RFC to the suggested alternate (as previously mentioned in the discussion). Please check it now.

Also, you did not sign your comment

TheOriginalSoni (talk) 20:58, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Elected![edit]

Hi there. You da boss now! I hope you enjoy it as much as I did. Happy New Year! --Stfg (talk) 00:02, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

I know I'm late to the party, but congratulations! I'm sure you'll do well. The UtahraptorTalk/Contribs 05:31, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks to both of you. I appreciate all of your contributions, both past and future. I stand on the shoulders of giants. – Jonesey95 (talk) 06:52, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Happy New Year Jonesey95![edit]

Fireworks in Jaén (cropped).jpg
Happy New Year!
Hello Jonesey95:
Thanks for all of your contributions to improve the encyclopedia for Wikipedia's readers, and have a happy and enjoyable New Year! Cheers, Northamerica1000(talk) 11:34, 1 January 2014 (UTC)


Peace sign.svg


Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year 2014}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.


Refs[edit]

Please do not shorten the refs like you did here [3] again without clear consensus. Thanks Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 14:27, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

I do not shorten refs like this without clear consensus or arbitrarily. There is clear consensus that citations should be formatted consistently. I made the citation formatting much more consistent (e.g. adding and correcting doi and pmid values, adding titles to citations with raw URLs, adding many links to pmid and other identifiers, and making author name formatting match more consistently from citation to citation) and in the process eliminated many citation errors. Before my edits, the article contained 32 CS1 citation errors. After my edits, the article contained just three CS1 citation errors, each of which was not yet flagged by a red error message (the edit was completed in October; the messages were added to the CS1 module in November).
And now it appears that you have reverted the article to its previous, error-laden state without first asking why the edits that removed those errors were made. I encourage you to undo your revert so that constructive edits made subsequent to October 19 are not lost. I have no objection to your replacing the shortened refs with filled-in refs, but please do not reintroduce dozens of citation errors to articles when editors have worked hard to fix them. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:44, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

WP:GOCE 2014[edit]

Congratulations on becoming the new lead! I've been working on the annual report for 2013 here. The bottom section is for you as incoming lead coordinator to fill in with your plans for the upcoming year. You can take a look at the last two years (2012 and 2011) to get an idea of what goes in there, or just say whatever you want. You can also fill in the rest of the details in the other sections if you want. I am working down from the top, so you could start at the bottom and move up. —Torchiest talkedits 16:03, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Congratulations! Matty.007 16:09, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

GOCE 2013 Annual Report[edit]

Guild of Copy Editors 2013 Annual Report
Writing Magnifying.PNG

The GOCE has wrapped up another successful year of operations!

Our 2013 Annual Report is now ready for review.

– Your project coordinators: Torchiest, Baffle gab1978 and Jonesey95

Sign up for the January drive! To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:44, 4 January 2014 (UTC)


Recent edit to Robert Dutton[edit]

Hey Jonesey95,

I noticed you recently fixed the unnamed parameter error on Robert Dutton's page. I used a reflink tool to fill in all of the bare urls prone to linkrot and then I received a notification on my talk page saying to fix it, however, I wasn't quite sure how. I tried several times and didn't know what it was asking me to repair. So thank you for fixing up my mistake and I was wondering what you did to fix the error that the tool created, so I could know how to fix it if it happens again in the future. Thanks! Meatsgains (talk) 01:43, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Meatsgains: "%7c" is a substitute for the "|" character (sometimes called a pipe or vertical bar). When a URL containing "|" is included in a Wikipedia cite template like {{cite web}}, the template interprets the "|" as "alert: here comes a new template parameter" (e.g. "title" or "author"). So a URL like http://www.foo.bar/foo.php?file=14|name-bar|show-yes, which is perfectly valid, looks like this in a cite web template (note that the end of the URL is cut off and the text at the end of the URL generates errors as well):
http://www.foo.bar/foo.php?file=14.  Text "name-bar" ignored (help); Text "show-yes" ignored (help); Missing or empty |title= (help)
If you substitute "%7c" for each "|" in the URL, the cite template sees the whole URL as you intended:
http://www.foo.bar/foo.php?file=14%7cname=bar%7cshow=yes.  Missing or empty |title= (help)
I left the title parameters out of the above citations so that you could see the difference in the URLs. The "unknown parameter" error is displayed for citations when there is a set of | characters without an equals sign (=) somewhere between them.
And one more slightly confusing thing: If you have a "title" or other non-url parameter with "|" characters in it, like "title=Review: Oscar-nominated movies | The Film Geek Web Site", that also leads to the error above. In that case, you need to substitute &#124; for each "|" character. – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:35, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Please check references for James Bryce, 1st Viscount Bryce and Arnold Lupton[edit]

hi there Could you pleaes check referencing for 2 pages James Bryce, 1st viscount Bryce and Arnold Lupton - Cheers and thanks Mike — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.180.74.196 (talk) 11:27, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

I cleaned up a few references in these two articles. Here are some tips for your future editing:
  • |last= and |first= are used to indicate the last name and first name of the author, respectively. |title= is for the title of the article, web page, or other work within a larger work. |work= is for the larger work within which the article is contained. See the documentation for {{cite web}} for more information.
  • Citations, ideally, should be formatted consistently from one citation to the next. You will find many articles in which this is not the case, but that's the ideal. For example, if all of the existing citations use the date format "12 January 2014", any citations that are added should use the same date format. See WP:CITEVAR for more information.
  • When you want to add a note to a Talk page, click the "New Section" link at the top of the page. Enter a brief title for your new section, then add your text in the big text field. When you are done writing, add four tildes (~~~~) to the end of the text. That will sign the text with your user name and the current date and time.
  • You might want to sign up for a user name and password so that you can participate more fully. Let me know if you need help with that.
Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia. It looks like you are on your way to being a constructive Wikipedia editor. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:09, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Works of Henry Chapu[edit]

Thanks so much for your intervention and for fixing the links. I will in future follow your template. Thanks again Jonesey95.

Weglinde (talk) 18:54, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Have gone through rest of links. So grateful your help. I will now go through all recent articles to make sure I do links properly. Weglinde (talk) 19:35, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Good work. I fixed a few remaining references where there were line breaks within the references. If you want to be extra careful, click on each of the links in the references to see if they take you to the right location. You may need to delete the period "." at the end of the web address. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:17, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

GOCE January 2014 copy edit drive barnstar[edit]

Modest Barnstar.png The Modest Barnstar
This barnstar is awarded to Jonesey95 for copy editing articles totalling 4000 words or more during the WP:GOCE January 2014 Backlog elimination drive. Thank you for participating! Diannaa (talk) 00:02, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

I... I feel I can talk to you about this...[edit]

Honestly, Jonesey, am I being an asshole here? User_talk:EEng#Personal_attack.3F_You_decide.21_.5BSection_heading_not_supplied_by_ChrisGualtieri.5B This guy's been on my case for months. Talk:Phineas_Gage#Tags_are_back

BTW, I didn't notice your edit summary the very model of a modern emigrantical until later -- precious! EEng (talk) 04:53, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Since you asked, my opinion: You're both poking and prodding each other and not taking a step back to see if you're here to build an encyclopedia or here for some other reason. My advice to each of you (although only one of you asked) is to take a step back, put away your sword, and read Wikipedia:Humor from cover to cover. It's an age-old chestnut on the internet that humor, especially the various varieites of clever, sophisticated wit, is difficult to convey in writing. One man's humor is another man's personal attack.
Apologize, even if you do not think you did anything wrong, and do not use the word "if" in your apology. Take a break from being clever and focus on the content and infrastructure of this great encyclopedia. Find other outlets for your desire to perform verbal gymnastics and make connections among previously unconnected thoughts and objects.
Since you asked, EEng. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:33, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
<slap><slap> Thanks! I needed that!




EEng (talk) 09:01, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Citation bot[edit]

Hi,

Just a quick note of thanks for seeking out errors that have resulted from the new bot release. Hope to have time to deal with them soon!

Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 08:15, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Smith609, I appreciate the thanks. I enjoy finding bugs and seeing them fixed, and I find Citation Bot to be a very useful tool. I worry that others will not be so tolerant of its quirks and will want to block it, as they have in the past.
I will keep reporting bugs as I find them. You're doing a great job with the updates. I hope you can find the time and energy to stamp out the last few big bugs. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:02, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
I use any excuse to point to User:EEng#.28thumbs_up.29. EEng (talk) 18:36, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you[edit]

Thank you for your help at Chicago Options Associates. Sorry for the rollback, I undid myself, it was just an accidental click. Thanks again, — Cirt (talk) 22:38, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Stalking A930913's talk page[edit]

I saw you answering a couple of requests about BracketBot issues on A930913's talk page. Thanks for your help! When you resolve a request so that A930913 doesn't need to take a look, please also edit the {{User:A930913/BBresolved|no}} part and change "no" into "yes". That will not only add the "resolved" box, but also mark the section for extra-speedy archival so they won't clutter the talk page (otherwise these sections are set not to be archived for the next ten years or so). Huon (talk) 02:01, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

I remember to do this sometimes, but since the code is hidden, I forget to remember it. I'll see if I can remember in the future. I wouldn't want those things to lie around for ten years.... – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:23, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

February blitz[edit]

Working Man's Barnstar.png The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar
Thanks for copyediting a total of 4151 words during the February GOCE Blitz! Miniapolis 02:28, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

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

March GOCE copyedit drive[edit]

Notes from the Guild of Copy Editors
Writing Magnifying.PNG

The March 2014 backlog elimination drive is a month-long effort to reduce the backlog of articles in need of copyediting. The drive begins on March 1 at 00:00 (UTC) and ends on March 31 at 23:59 (UTC). Our goals are to copyedit all articles tagged in December 2012 and January 2013 and to complete all requests placed in January 2014. Barnstars will be awarded to anyone who copyedits at least one article, and special awards will be given to the top five in the following categories: number of articles, number of words, number of articles over 5,000 words, number of articles tagged in December 2012 and January 2013 and the longest article. We hope to see you there!

GOCE Coordinator.png

– Your drive coordinators: Jonesey95, Baffle gab1978 and Miniapolis

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

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:59, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Merging articles[edit]

Flushed with success (?) in merging Sea star wasting syndrome into Starfish wasting disease I tackled a more difficult proposition. I merged Gorilla gorilla diehli into Cross River gorilla. That is to say I went through the procedure as outlined in the instructions. I basically copied most of the source article into the recipient and there is bound to be quite a bit of duplication and superfluous information. I see you thought some of the source article was a copyright violation so if you feel like helping out in trimming the merged article into shape you would be welcome. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:22, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Cwmhiraeth. The GGd article was created over a redirect by students in an academic course. The students added useful information, and they were getting a grade for the project, so I didn't want to bite them and the useful information by simply reverting it. Nice work with the merge. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:32, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

citations[edit]

Your Autoed edit here seems to be a bit askew, putting a list value to author2. Please consider either splitting each out (author 2, author3...) or even adopting the last2, first2, last3, first3 entry, which would be consistent with the prior use of last1, first1. Cheers, LeadSongDog come howl! 19:39, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

LeadSongDog, thanks for the note. I have been replacing the "coauthors" parameter in citations where it appears without any author parameters at all. In such citations, no author is displayed, which is a problem. If you scroll to the bottom of the edit you cited, you'll see that sort of fix.
In the first citation shown in that edit, I replaced the deprecated "coauthors" parameter with "author2" in order to eliminate a deprecated parameter. The display of the resulting citation was unchanged, and it would remain unchanged if I used author2/author3 or last2/first2 etc., so I didn't take the time to add these not-strictly-necessary parameters to the citation. Another editor is welcome to do so. I prefer to move on to the next article in Category:CS1 errors: coauthors without author and fix citations that are not displaying any authors at all.
I do sometimes take the time to split the authors into individual parameters, but since the resulting rendered citation is usually unchanged (or changed in punctuation and/or name order only), I prefer to focus on citations that are truly broken in ways that interfere with readers' locating of sources. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:10, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
Thank you. My concern was mainly if this was happening in automated fashion, as these things seem to multiply when one isn't looking too closely. Cheers. LeadSongDog come howl! 22:08, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
LeadSongDog, I inspect every edit before I click Save. If the script wants to make changes that I am not comfortable with, I modify them by hand before saving or abandon the proposed edit without saving. If you look at the end of the alphabet in this category, you will see that articles starting with the letters Q-Z have about 90 articles remaining, out of about 600–700 articles a month or two ago. Those are the articles that were too complex for my script to fix easily. I will return to them after I have cleared out the easy articles from the category.
You can see my AutoEd scripts here. The "month" script is the one that I am using for these edits. I know the name of the script doesn't really make sense.... – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:03, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
Ah, I see. Looks like a good way to cut the job down to size. Thanks for explaining. LeadSongDog come howl! 23:27, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
When |coauthors= contains the names of two or more authors, please don't simply rename |coauthors= to |author= as you did here, here and here - it corrupts the metadata. Instead, split it out into separate |author1=, |author2= etc., like this. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:22, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
See paragraphs above in response to OP. I have been replacing the "coauthors" parameter in citations where it appears without any author parameters at all. In such citations, no author at all is displayed to a WP reader, let alone in the metadata, which is a problem. I have no intention of doing similar edits to the larger Category:Pages containing cite templates with deprecated parameters‎, since I recognize that doing so would leave the display unchanged and add metadata problems.
There are zillions of citations with multiple authors in |author= or |authors= already, so I'm not significantly contributing to the size of that problem with a few hundred fixes of authors that are not displayed at all in WP or in metadata. There are also editors who will fight tooth and nail against changing that situation, unfortunately. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:15, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
Data stored in "author" or "authors" parameters is definitely rendered in the displayed citations. It is also displayed in metadata, all though multiple authors are displayed as if they were one author. Storing multiple authors in the "author" or "authors" parameters is not the problem. The problem is that Module:Citation/CS1 does not parse these parameters to produce proper metadata and the CS1 module could easily be modified to do so. We are talking about adding a few lines of code in one template to eliminate the clutter of "first1, last1, first2, last2, ..." parameters in zillions of articles. Finally how many consumers of Wikipedia citation metadata are there? I suspect not very many. Boghog (talk) 15:50, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
I am skeptical about this "a few lines of code in one template" assertion but willing to be persuaded. How would a few lines of code be able to automatically differentiate between the following, all of which I am sure exist in the wild in WP:
  • author=Doe JJ, Smith KT, Brown MR
  • author=Doe, JJ, Smith, KT, Brown, MR
  • author=JJ Doe, KT Smith, MR Brown
  • author=Doe, John, Smith, Kate, Brown, Michael
  • author=John Doe, Jr., Kate Smith, Ph.D., Michael Brown, M.D.
And that's just Western names. I haven't delved into naming from non-Western cultures, some of which follow different rules about which part of a name goes where.
Please do not suggest that editors will read the style guides and documentation and provide punctuation that follows the style guides. We have many thousands of citations that provide evidence to the contrary, with more popping up every day. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:44, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
Some editors create citations templates by hand, but many use template filling tools that generate a consistent citation style. It should be possible to identify and parse well-speced author formats that are created by template filling tools (or manually by authors who do read style guidelines) and mark the rest as errors. One example is the Diberri Wikipedia template filling tool. The use of Diberri's tool is mentioned (but not required) in MEDMOS and MCBMOS. Hence this citation format is very commonly used in Wikipedia biomedical and scientific articles. This format is very well defined:
* Patrias K, Wendling P (2007–13). "Author for Journal Articles". The NLM Style Guide for Authors, Editors, and Publishers. Bethesda (MD): National Library of Medicine (US). 
In particular, this is a comma delimited citation format. Commas are only used between authors and never within one author. Furthermore semicolons are never used. Hence it is very easy to identify this type of author format with a regular expression and it is very easy to parse. It should also be possible to identify and parse other well-speced citation formats. Author lists that are not formatted using an accepted standard should be marked as errors, similar to the way the "date" parameter is error checked (e.g., "July 2010" is OK and "2010 July" is not OK). Boghog (talk) 21:56, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
But once the citation exists, how do you tell the difference between these two citations, one of which was created by the Diberri tool and one which was not? There is no flag to say "this is a multi-author comma-delimited author parameter". [date error removed to avoid confusion]
  • Patrias K, Wendling P (2007). "Author for Journal Articles". The NLM Style Guide for Authors, Editors, and Publishers. Bethesda (MD): National Library of Medicine (US). 
  • Patrias K, Jr., Wendling P, M.D. (2007). "Author for Journal Articles". The NLM Style Guide for Authors, Editors, and Publishers. Bethesda (MD): National Library of Medicine (US). 
Text in |author= is separated by commas, but how does the error-detection code know what is an error and what is not? I think it can't, but I would love to be wrong. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:14, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
According to the documentation, periods are never used except an optional single period at the end. Also according to the NLM documentation, "Vincent T. DeVita, Jr." becomes "DeVita VT Jr", Hence in the example above, "Patrias K, Jr." is an easily detectable error (a third author whose last name is "Jr" and no first name). In addition, the documentation reads "Omit degrees, titles, and honors that follow a personal name, such as M.D." Hence "Patrias K, Jr., Wendling P, M.D." contains two extra periods that should not be there. The code could also scan the text for common degrees (M.D., Ph.D., etc.) and if present, throw an error. There may be a few errors that might sneak through (nothing is perfect), but a large majority of errors should be caught. Boghog (talk) 22:44, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── As I said, I am skeptical, but I look forward to seeing a demonstration of such code in action. Here are just a few examples of |author= from a single article, Nuclear and radiation accidents:

  • author=Johnston, Robert (one author, one comma)
  • author=James C. Oskins, Michael H. Maggelet (two authors, one comma)
  • author=Ricks, Robert C. et al. (one author and "et al.", one comma)
  • author=István Turai and Katalin Veress (two authors, no comma, "and")
  • author=Ball, Roberts, Simpson, et al (three authors, "et al.", three commas)
  • author=Jacobson, Mark Z. and Delucchi, Mark A. (two authors, two commas, "and")

I know that they are not internally consistent as they should be within the same article, but that is the real world of WP. If they came from different articles, most or all would be acceptable based on CITEVAR, I expect. I find it hard to imagine code that could render all of those citations correctly based on detection of commas. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:22, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Many of the same ambiguities can also occur with "author1, author2, ..." or even "first1, last1, first2, last2, ...". To remove all ambiguities, we would need to add several additional parameters such as "author-title1" and "middle1" (middle name). And as you have pointed out above, there are zillions of articles that already use a single parameter named "author" to store full author lists. A large fraction of these do conform to the NLM author standard. Furthermore the use of a single author parameter has not be deprecated. If it were deprecated (a proposal that I strongly would oppose), a bot would need to go through these articles and convert all the above examples with a similar parser and make similar mistakes. Perhaps the best long term solution is to have a bot replace all the {{cite journal}} templates that do conform to NLM author standard to the {{vcite2 journal}} template (that in turn calls Module:Citation/CS1). Code could be added to {{vcite2 journal}} so that it would parse the author parameter and create "first1, last1, first2, last2, ..." parameters that are passed on to Module:Citation/CS1 making everyone happy. The are a number of potential problems with this however. For example, the maintainer of User:Citation bot had declined to support {{vcite}} templates in the past and therefore it is questionable if he would support {{vcite2 journal}} in the future. Boghog (talk) 13:30, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
There are an endless number of potential exceptions and no filter would be able to catch 100% of these, but it is also important not to loose sight that a large majority could properly be identified as not conforming to the NLM standard and marked as errors. Applying the NLM author standard to your last set of examples above:
  • author=Johnston, Robert (one author, one comma) – a literal interpretation is two authors neither with a first initial, therefore does not conform to the NLM standard
  • author=James C. Oskins, Michael H. Maggelet (two authors, one comma) – periods should not be there, therefore does not conform; ignoring the periods, the literal interpretation is that we have two first/middle initials "Oskins" and "Maggelet" that do not conform since each has more than two characters and the second character is lower case.
  • author=Ricks, Robert C. et al. (one author and "et al.", one comma) – periods should not be there, therefore does not conform. Note: it is fairly common to have "et al." at the end of a author string so this should be immediately stripped from the string before further processing
  • author=István Turai and Katalin Veress (two authors, no comma, "and") – "and" occurs frequently enough that it probably should be converted into a comma before parsing so that this string becomes "István Turai, Katalin Veress". After the conversion we are left with two authors however the literal interpretation is that we have two authors with first/middle initials of Turai and Veress that do not conform since each has more than two characters and the second character is lower case.
  • author=Ball, Roberts, Simpson, et al (three authors, "et al.", three commas) – after stripping "et al" we are left with three authors none of which has a first initial, therefore does not conform
  • author=Jacobson, Mark Z. and Delucchi, Mark A. (two authors, two commas, "and") – a period that should not be there, hence does not conform; also after converting the "and" to a comma (Jacobson, Mark Z, Delucchi, Mark A), we are left with two authors (Jacobson and Delucchi) without first initials, hence does not conform. Boghog (talk) 21:37, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
Above, you said "Module:Citation/CS1 does not parse these parameters to produce proper metadata and the CS1 module could easily be modified to do so." I have, with an open mind, asked for an example of how the module could be modified to do what you propose. Now you are saying that the module should be modified to flag citations as nonconformant with NLM, which not all CS1 citations are required to follow. I'm perceiving a drift in your argument, one that ends in a place that appears to conflict with CITEVAR. Please correct me if I misinterpret your words.
What concrete change would you like to make to the module? I am fine with changing the module if it can be done in a way that is concrete and can apply to all citations that make use of the module.
I suggest that this discussion be moved to Module_talk:Citation/CS1 if you have a specific recommendation for a way to change the module that would apply to all existing CS1 citations that use the module. The change would also need to respect CITEVAR, I believe. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:07, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
There has been no drift what so ever in my proposal. I question the need for metadata in the first place since I suspect there are not very many consumers of this data. However if one wants to generate proper metadata, then one must enforce some standards on how the author data is stored. This is exactly the same situation that we have the date parameter. In order to produce proper author metadata, it must first pass a filter to make sure that it can be parsed. Author data that does not pass the filter should not be parsed and the raw author data should instead be used directly to produce the metadata as it currently does. Marking non-conforming data as an error is not my preference. I am only responding to others that think metadata is important. Marking the data as an error does not violate CITEVAR, but subsequent edits to remove those errors so that 100% accurate metadata can be generated may be a violation. My proposal would preserve the current storage format and display of authors and is completely consistent with CITEVAR. Deprecating the single "author" parameter to store multiple authors is not consistent with CITEVAR. Boghog (talk) 07:12, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Tree[edit]

Jonesey, people complain about Christmas tree, section decorations. Something for you? Hafspajen (talk) 17:56, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Hafspajen, what and where are these complaints? Can I see them on a Talk page so that I know what to address and how to address it? I'll be happy to take a look if there is a specific need for improvement. Thanks. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:25, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Well, the section Setting up and taking down is tagged = This section may be confusing or unclear to readers and Decoration has been tagged, This section may need to be rewritten entirely to comply with Wikipedia's quality standards - and it might be a little difficult to clean up for me. Copy editing and clean up is needed, possibly grammar problems and confusing formulations. Hafspajen (talk) 21:41, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
Hafspajen, I've looked at these pages a couple of times, and I don't see an easy way to provide a quick copy edit that would fix the section. It does indeed need a complete rewrite/rebalance and a comparison to the main article linked from that section. That's not something I'm willing to do at this time. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:00, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
Oh, well, no problem. smile Hafspajen (talk) 04:09, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Essay wp:Autofixing_cites[edit]

User:Wikid77 here. I have written more Lua script to autofix (auto-correct) typos when using the wp:CS1 cite templates. When I helped to develop those Lua-based cite templates, during October 2012 to April 2013, the intent was to auto-correct for many typos, not show numerous error messages, and I never imagined Lua would be used to issue thousands of red-error messages when simple auto-correction would have been quite easy. Well, after waiting all year, I have returned to re-focus on autofixing typos in cite templates, and suppress most of the red-error messages. Across Wikipedia editing, many editors are just too busy to nitpick the details and so, autofixing of cite parameters provides a rapid way to solve the problems and make many cite templates almost trivial to use. Last year, I estimated the hand-correction of cites to require over 3 years of manual, hand-crafted edits, and now after another whole year, the backlog is still about 3-5 years if hand-fixed. Although several users are diligently hand-editing the pages to fix cites, many other users are actively inserting invalid cite parameters into almost as many dozens of pages each week. The past year (of tedious cite work) has proven how autofixing is the only hope to rapidly correct the 10,000 pages in the backlog categories. For example:

During early 2014, the unsupported parameters have been fixed at only 100-200 pages per month, as meaning more years of backlog work. I wrote new essay, "wp:Autofixing cites" to explain some simple ways to autofix the major cite parameters and hope people might discuss issues about the autofixing in the talk-page there, "WT:Autofixing cites" where all the complex tactics of fixing URLs and dates could be discussed, in more detail. -Wikid77 (talk) 22:02, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for laying this out. I will respond at the Talk page for the essay. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:45, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Wow[edit]

Thanks for correcting my typos. What's really pathetic is that I made the same error twice! :p Must have some funny idiosyncrasy when it comes to typing the work "public", or autocorrect did something wonky. Needless to say, THANK YOU! --Another Believer (Talk) 16:50, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

I thought you'd like that. I've always thought that "pubic" should be underlined in red by any respectable automated spell-checker. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:43, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
… I really don't wish to see a list of pubic art. --Another Believer (Talk) 23:08, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Rakesh Biswas page[edit]

[moved from Jonesey95 User page:] The matter provided for Mr Rakesh Biswas is genuine and have reference material .Mr Biswas is a famous personality of india , as he is youth icon for us . so kindly due to his respect make his page correct for his followers and researchers. thnks - unsigned addition by 106.219.56.63, 19:10, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

All I did was get the page moved from Category space to article space. You should post your concerns at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rakesh Biswas. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:22, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Repost of The Yellow Wallpaper (film)[edit]

Is there something wrong in a typo or something on this page? It says on your profile you mostly delete for typos, but not sure where the typo is. The page fits every guideline for Wikipedia article, and the article is not the same as the original article, but has been amended. Do you know how to fix what is wrong? You are suggesting speedy deletion, but not sure why. Thanks! Atafirst (talk) 03:10, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

All I did was fix a syntax error in one of the citations. I did not suggest speedy deletion. As you can see in the article's history, that deletion tag was placed by Wikipedical. The previous discussion is at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_Yellow_Wallpaper_(film). You did the right thing by clicking the "Contest this deletion" button and posting on the Talk page. An editor should respond to you there with an explanation of why the article is proposed for deletion.
Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia. I know it can sometimes be difficult to learn how things are done around here. You might consider copying the article's contents to Draft:The Yellow Wallpaper (film), where you can work on article drafts that are not ready to be in the main article space yet. – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:28, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I know coauthors field throws an error message, but . . .[edit]

... the coauthors field is a feature, not a bug, when it is used to list the contributors of chapters to a volume edited by editors who are already listed in editor fields. It is an error worse than leaving in a no-op coauthors fields (yeah, I know that that field doesn't display by default) when a book is listed that already has its editors named, as the editors will display in the correct manner for a bibliographic entry in that case. I'm sure you are just trying to help here, and I really need to talk to someone else about the changes in the CS1 parameters, but who? The changes in the CS1 parameters, deprecating parameters that were used correctly by editors like me who read the fine documentation, are wasting your time and mine, and resulting in a whole bunch of changes that are very difficult to roll back to correct. Where is the discussion among editors about which parameters are deprecated, and why? Thanks for your help, and best wishes for much enjoyment and appreciation of your editing. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 00:33, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

As the citation was written, the authors of the book in question were displayed only in the wikitext, not in the article. How does that hidden information help readers locate the book in question or learn who the authors of the chapters in the book were? I believe that readers should not be expected to view the wikitext in the hope that some hidden information will be there to help them.
In any event, I have commented out |coauthors= in Jim Flynn (academic), which maintains your desire (as I perceive it) to have the hidden author information in the wikitext and my desire to eliminate red error messages from articles. I compared the display of the page before my first edit and after commenting out |coauthors=, and it appears to display that citation in exactly the same way. I hope that works for you.
I'm curious about the documentation to which you refer. Can you point me to documentation that shows, or showed, how to use |coauthors= in this way? I am legitimately asking, not trying to needle you. I have found that documentation on WP can be inconsistent from location to location, which can be frustrating to editors.
Most of the discussion about CS1 citations happens at Help talk:Citation Style 1, with some additional technical discussion at Module talk:Citation/CS1. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:01, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) If it is desired to include the names of all authors in the wikitext, but to display just a few, the approved method is by means of the |display-authors= parameter. This does require that |coauthors= not be used, each author being specified separately - either as |last1=|first1= etc. or as |author1= etc. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:37, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
Now fixed in the approved manner by converting |coauthors= to |lastn= |firstn= format with |display-authors=0 for good measure. -- 79.67.241.76 (talk) 17:31, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
... and now it is changed again. -- 79.67.241.76 (talk) 22:06, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
... and another page. -- 79.67.241.76 (talk) 23:32, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
... and yet another page. -- 79.67.241.76 (talk) 07:48, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Fixing coauthors in general[edit]

Hi Jonesey. I feel really bad saying this stuff. I know you are trying to help. When I was going through Category:CS1 errors: coauthors without author, I generally employed a method such that when I erred, it would keep the error message in. Also, the ones that I didn't touch were generally the ones that I couldn't even figure out what to do quickly. And had already gone through alphabetically up to "H" I believe, so a lot of what was in the category up to there were weird cases. So I think you ended up creating a lot of problems with your method: E.g., all the Fishbase cites like [4], those are the editors, not the authors. Or a funny one like this: [5]. Coauthor named Med Vet? Those are actually part of the sole author's title as a Doctor of Veterinary Medicine! Anyway, maybe we can think of a way to go back through these efficiently and check for issues like that? For the random selection of a run of 17 edits in the "D"s that I looked at that, 9 of them had problems [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] --Atethnekos (DiscussionContributions) 20:56, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Don't feel bad. I make mistakes just like anyone. Feel free to fix any mistakes that I have made. I never take it personally. This issue, however, is a case of Garbage In, Garbage Out. I saw a lot of crazy stuff in that category as I fixed about 2,100 articles with this error. The 90 or so articles that are left were the ones that were too complicated to fix quickly with a single script; I expect to get to those in the next few days. As for the citations where editors are now listed in the author field, or multiple parts of an author's name are listed in parameters for multiple authors, welcome to Wikipedia. It's ugly out there.
Please see the first four or five paragraphs of the "citations" section above on this Talk page for more details behind my reasoning.
Thank you for your comments and for your contributions to fixing these error categories. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:17, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Barnstar of Diligence Hires.png The Barnstar of Diligence
With your extensive work on GOCE and answering of questions in the Wikipedia community, I award you this barnstar. JustBerry (talk) 09:19, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, JustBerry! – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:19, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

GOCE March 2014 barnstar[edit]

Modest Barnstar.png The Modest Barnstar
This Modest Barnstar is awarded to Jonesye95 for copy edits totalling over 4000 words during the GOCE March 2014 copy edit drive. Thank you very much for participating! Diannaa (talk) 18:57, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Minor Barnstar Hires.png The Minor barnstar
Thank you for judging the GOCE March 2014 copy edit drive! :) Newyorkadam (talk) 19:36, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

GOCE March drive wrapup[edit]

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

The March 2014 drive wrap-up is now ready for review.
Sign up for the April blitz!

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

To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by
Guild of Copy Editors March 2014 backlog elimination drive wrap-up
Writing Magnifying.PNG

Participation: Thanks to all who participated in the drive and helped out behind the scenes. 42 people signed up for this drive and 28 of these completed at least one article. Final results are available here.

Progress report: Articles tagged during the target months of December 2012 and January 2013 were reduced from 177 to 33, and the overall backlog was reduced by 13 articles. The total backlog was 2,902 articles at the end of March. On the Requests page during March, 26 copy edit requests were completed, all requests from January 2014 were completed, and the length of the queue was reduced by 11 articles.

Blitz!: The April blitz will run from April 13–19, with a focus on the Requests list. Sign up now!

– Your drive coordinators: Jonesey95, Baffle gab1978 and Miniapolis

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

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:57, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Refn/doc[edit]

Hi.

These two paragraphs appear shortly after one another and explain the exact same thing. As such, one of them is redundant:

  • Parser tags such as <ref> do not allow the inclusion of wikimarkup such as substing, variables or templates. The magic word {{#tag:ref}} can be used to resolve these issues, but the syntax can be non-obvious. This template uses {{#tag:ref}} with easy to understand parameters.
  • Because of a technical limitation, a set of <ref>...</ref> does not work inside another. But they do work inside this template. This is mainly useful for explanatory footnotes that requires a cite using <ref>...</ref>. (For more information, see Help:Footnotes § Grouping footnotes.)

The second is less technical. Oh, and by the way, it is I who is reverting, hence, you are teaching BRD to the wrong person. It is certainly not Bold, Revert, counter-revert and gone for six month to avoid Discussion.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 02:09, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I have responded at Template talk:Refn. – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:11, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

AWB[edit]

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)