User talk:Rjwilmsi/Archives/2011/March

This is an archive of past discussions about User:Rjwilmsi. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Error report - Rcats

About a year ago, on 14 February 2010, this bot installed a redirect category template, {{R from title without diacritics}} in the Juan Rodriguez Cabrillo redirect. This bot installed that Rcat on the second line below the "#REDIRECT . . ." line. However, per WP:RCAT, these templates are to be installed on the first line directly following the "#REDIRECT . . .". If this bot has not yet been modified to comply with WP:RCAT and is still installing Rcats on the second line, please make the necessary upgrade as soon as possible. Thank you very much! — Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX ) 09:29, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Okay, rev 7622. Rjwilmsi 11:04, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Bravo! You da MAN! er..uhm..BOT!>) — Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX ) 16:09, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Public Policy Initiative Recruiting Assessors for Spring

Hi Rjwilmsi,

I saw some of your contributions on Agriculture Policy which falls within the scope of Wikiproject: United States Public Policy, and I was hoping you would be interested in assessing articles with the Public Policy Initiative. There is more info about assessment on the 9/13/2010 Signpost. With your contribution history you would be a great asset to the project. If you're interested or just curious you can sign up on the project page or just contact me. Thanks! ARoth (Public Policy Initiative) (talk) 00:53, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Happy Wikibirthday

Congratulations, WOW!!! 6 years how it was Wikipedia when you first came? Anyway, we haven`t met but i was goofing around the list of wikipedians with most edit and your username came got my eye, and saw the userbox so i was bold and decided to give you this:

Happy birthday and happy editing. Zidane tribal (talk) 05:42, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

External morphology of Lepidoptera

Some of your edits on references are incorrect. "page" referes to the page under reference. "pages" refers to the total number of pages. I will be correcting these shortly. Please reconcile. AshLin (talk) 05:38, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

No. Please see the documentation for {{cite book}} which says "pages or page: These parameters are for listing the pages relevant to the citation, not the total number of pages in the book". Rjwilmsi 07:44, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I stand corrected. I dont know why this interpretation came to my mind. Hell, a couple of thousand faulty refs! AshLin (talk) 14:24, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Citation & identifiers, part two

Alright, the identifier changes have kicked. See Template talk:Citation#Implementation. This has been deployed on {{citation}}, {{cite arxiv}}, {{cite book}}, {{cite conference}}, {{cite journal}}, and {{cite web}}. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 09:21, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

J. Robert Oppenheimer

If you'd like to standardize on hyphenated ISBNs prompt me on my talk page and I've got a script to do it. We might as well if there is a bot for it. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:05, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Done. Rjwilmsi 20:16, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

URL removal

Hi Rjwilmsi: Just checking to see why you removed the url for one of the papers used as a reference for the fecal sac article. Is there a problem with linking to that website? MeegsC | Talk 02:57, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

No problem with pubmedcentral. The |pmc= parameter automatically creates the appropriate URL so |url= is not needed. Rjwilmsi 07:58, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Ah! Live and learn. Thanks for that! MeegsC | Talk 15:53, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

PMC parameter

Hi. I saw this edit made to clean up the references now that PMC is an attribute. The edit broke the reference. It appears that when using the archive parameters, URL is mandatory. That check should probably be modified so that PMC= is an acceptable alternative to URL= when archivedate= and archiveurl= are present. I'm assuming that you are more familiar with this change than I am s I only just read about it. Is there a central discussion on this? I'll raise this problem there. Thanks. -- Whpq (talk) 18:25, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Do you really think we need to archive pubmedcentral? I would not think archive links to be needed in this case (stable medical journal indexing database/site). Rjwilmsi 18:27, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Probably not. I am in the habit of generating a webcitation archive because of link rot. If Pub Med Central isn't going to disappear, then there's probably not a good reason to generate a webcitation archive copy. Having the PMC ID as a parameter allows easy adjustment if the actual URL changes, so that's a good thing. I don't know how many times there will be archiveurl= used in a PMC reference, but jut for backwards compatibility, allowing the archiveurl= to exist without a warning message in the reference citation would also be a good thing. -- Whpq (talk) 18:35, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

This is the only occurrence I'm aware of (archiving is great for news cites that can drop content at will, though there are bots that will do it for you). From now I'll obviously not remove |url= if there is a |archiveurl=, though I don't expect to find any other cases. If you think it's common enough to worry about, I reckon you should take it up on the talk page of {{cite journal}}. Thanks Rjwilmsi 18:39, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Is there a way for AWB to spot these occurences? I'm not looking to make the template more complicated than it needs to be. If the archiveurl= and archivedate= parameters can be removed at the same time that the PMC= is swapped in for the URL=, then this probably the cleanest solution. -- Whpq (talk) 18:42, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I've updated my logic to do this (with my review), but didn't find any other occurrences. I'll likely run this again in a couple of months on a new db dump, so I'll check for any matches then. Rjwilmsi 17:28, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Ok. Thanks! - Whpq (talk) 22:44, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Well Done!

You have been awarded the Manliness Award for helping to construct a great encyclopedia.

Keep up the great work!

A Very Manly Man (talk) 09:42, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Cite web v cite news

Hi, I raised a post at WP:citing sources [1] which was prompted by an edit you made. Please post there if you have any comments to make. Thanks. Eldumpo (talk) 19:47, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Notification: changes to "Mark my edits as minor by default" preference

Hello there. This is an automated message to tell you about the gradual phasing out of the preference entitled "Mark all edits minor by default", which you currently have (or very recently had) enabled.

On 13 March 2011, this preference was hidden from the user preferences screen as part of efforts to prevent its accidental misuse (consensus discussion, guidelines for use at WP:MINOR). This had the effect of locking users in to their existing preference, which, in your case, was true. To complete the process, your preference will automatically be changed to false in the next few days. This does not require any intervention on your part and all users will still be able to manually mark their edits as being minor in the usual way.

For well-established users such as yourself there is a workaround available involving custom JavaScript. If you have any problems, feel free to drop me a note.

Thank you for your understanding and happy editing :) Editing on behalf of User:Jarry1250, LivingBot (talk) 20:09, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Rjwilmsi. You have new messages at User_talk:Rjwilmsi/Bibcodes.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 03:24, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Cite web and cite news

Hi. Further to your earlier post on the thread I started at WP:citing sources [2] it would be useful if you could look at my latest comment as I want to try and take forward improved wording for the template. Thanks. Eldumpo (talk) 22:01, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

BTW...

When your script does this [3], it might as well removed |id= entirely. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 15:21, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

URLs are good

Hi!

I have added urls to articles because they appear differently: One just clicks on the titles of the articles to find the link (rather than choosing among many options).

I like your other edits, but it may be a waste of your time to remove the urls. Ãlso, I have inserted such urls into many articles related to the simplex algorithm, which at least provides some uniformity to the referencing of the articles.

sincerely, Kiefer.Wolfowitz (Discussion) 15:14, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Peptide synthesis

Hi there Just wondering - did citation bot not do it right? [4]

--Rifleman 82 (talk) 15:58, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

No, the DOI and Bibcode the citation bot added are for an unrelated paper. Rjwilmsi 16:00, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Silent Hill

I saw that you recently edited Silent Hill's article. A request for commenting on an issue about persistent disruptive editing that came up some days ago in Silent Hill's talk page has been made and since you're an administrator, I'm asking you if you could comment. I guess your opinion would be taken into consideration more than simple editors'. Golden Sugarplum (talk) 15:49, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not an admin. I would be willing to help but don't have any specific knowledge of the content of Silent Hill, so I'm not sure I can add anything to the discussion. Thanks Rjwilmsi 21:56, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I thought you were one. You wouldn't need to know a lot about the game, since the problem is about unsourced statements which are also unneccesary details (the plot section is already past the word limit). I think it's good that you don't have specific knowledge because you would be more objective and would more easily convince the person who did these edits that a reader unaware of the plot would be confused by these edits. The problem came up days ago and still hasn't been solved because almost none replied to the request for comment, so please give us a hand because he/she does not cooperate. Golden Sugarplum (talk) 22:55, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Redundant url insertion

At this edit, there's no need for the pmid lookup url when the pmid parameter is populated. The template generates it. LeadSongDog come howl! 17:41, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, but I didn't insert any such URL. Rjwilmsi 17:46, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Clean up

Hi, I see you're going after me and catching some edits, such as dashes and some other clean-up items. First of all, thanks for that! Second, how do you get the shorter dashes that you're using? (I just use the dash on my keyboard). Thanks again! --CaroleHenson (talk) 17:30, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, I'm not targeting edits by any specific user. Shorter dashes – don't you mean longer? They're on the clickable list at the bottom of the edit box, or you can copy and paste all varieties from WP:DASH. Thanks Rjwilmsi 20:44, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Ok thanks! (By the way, I didn't think you were targeting particular users, I just saw that you updated many articles that I worked on). Thanks again, it's always fun to see it get that much more polished along the way!!! --CaroleHenson (talk) 21:24, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Long non-coding RNA page

Hi The references in the Long non-coding RNA page are not in the standard format at present. Is this something your bot could fix? If not, is there anyone with a bot which could fix this? Many thanks in advance --RE73 (talk) 12:05, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

It would be quite easy to do, but let's make sure it's agreed: the main contributor, Drmed36 is no longer active on Wikipedia, the other main contributor is Chris Capoccia. If Chris Capoccia agrees I can do it, please double check with him/her first. Rjwilmsi 17:33, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean by nonstandard format. Except for the one footnote, everything is in parenthetical references matching a standard format outlined in WP:CITE. I'm not opposed to switching everything to footnotes, but don't mistake that for correcting a nonstandard reference format. The only part of the references that doesn't follow the standard is the one that's currently using a footnote (see WP:CITEVAR). —Chris Capoccia ^T⁄_C 15:08, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, my mistake. I wasn't aware that such citations were allowed and saw they were different to other pages that I have seen on here. --RE73 (talk) 07:05, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

PMID when there's a PMC

Hi Rj, I've just undone another addition of PMID 20248086 - this time to Oxygen toxicity. The thing is, that link (like PMID 20248096) is to a virtually empty page, because there's a full text version available for each article; and as each reference has a PMC id, the PMID is just clutter and a poor link for the reader to follow. Would it be worth checking in general to see if a PMC exists before adding the PMID, because I'm finding it hard to see any value in directly linking to an abstract, when full text is already linked. Cheers, --RexxS (talk) 22:33, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Totally disagree, such a check would be incorrect. The PMID record is still very useful for the PMID index, third party links from pubmed and the citation export options from pubmed. If you really feel that the PMID should not be shown when the PMC is present then please raise a discussion point at Template_talk:Cite journal to consider a change to the template display logic – you've reverted about 3 PMIDs, there are ~79,000 citations with both PMID and PMC. (As you can tell I don't like being reverted prior to the discussion.) Rjwilmsi 23:16, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

That's just the natural order of 'Bold - Revert - Discuss' that I'm accustomed to, so I hope you'll be able to get used to reversion preceding discussion. I really don't intend taking issue with 79,000 citations, but having taken the article in question to GA through PR to FA, I do have considered reasons for the citation as I wrote it (i.e. the pmid is worthless), and I'll naturally defend a Featured Article from the addition of what I believe to be an ill-considered link. Nevertheless, other opinions would be worth hearing so I've opened discussion as you suggested at Template talk:Cite journal. --RexxS (talk) 00:26, 31 March 2011 (UTC)