User talk:Rjwilmsi/Archives/2011/April

Date format

Thank you for your diligent work. However, can you please no use the yyyy-mm-dd date format on the refs? See, for example, this recent edit. Mmmm d, yyyy formats are preferred.—Markles 12:56, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

On that article all the other dates in refs use yyyy-mm-dd format. I've configured the bot to follow the existing format of the article. Rjwilmsi 12:59, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

You did? Well then you're absolutely right to do so. It's neat that you can program the bot to do that. I hadn't bothered to check any other articles the bot had edited. Sorry to pester you. Rock on.—Markles 14:27, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Raichu

You might want to figure out what went wrong in this revision. I didn't check any revisions you made cause there were so many of them, but then somebody removed this content, and my attention was drawn to it. Thanks, _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 02:21, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. Problem was correct data included, but with a load of unwanted HTML too. Now fixed, and article redone. I checked my log file, it also happened on Chansey, fixed that too. Rjwilmsi 07:14, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Specifying pages in cites?

Thank you very much for your attention to detail in the Gaia hypothesis page. I actually wasn't using the "cite" way of referencing because I'm not sure when it is best to use it instead of "ref". If you could point me to the right link I hope to give you less work in the future. Also, in this edit the page number of the reference got lost in the change of format. Is this intentional? I always hesitate between using the same ref for many references regardless of the page of the book, or be more precise and create different references for different cites spread in a book. Thanks for your advice! --Qgil (talk) 14:53, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Link for your first question is Wikipedia:Citation_templates, I certainly find that way much more powerful than plain citations, though <ref> is still used with it. The loss of page number was an accident; I've restored it. On that point it's definitely desirable to specify specific page or pages whenever possible. If citing the same book, but different pages many times, the harv system works well, example the multiple references to Case's book on Cat. Rjwilmsi 17:35, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! I had tried to get the clear information you just gave me in lazy searches between edits. Never tried too I hard before fallbacking to ref, I guess... :) --Qgil (talk) 18:19, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Canadian federal election, 2011

Can you run your bot on Canadian federal election, 2011. (for news article references) Thanks. --33rogers (talk) 12:39, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. --33rogers (talk) 13:02, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Are there are any more CBC News articles in Canadian federal election, 2011 which your CiteCompletion code can formalize?

Also can you add code so that CiteCompletion supports more news sources on Canadian federal election, 2011? I think The Globe and Mail and Toronto Sun are top news sources in the article (did not count it though).

Thanks.

--33rogers (talk) 08:36, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

When I checked last year the Toronto Sun was not in the top 600 news sources cited on en-wiki. Globe and Mail was 59th, so I'll try to get round to adding support for that one in the next couple of weeks. Rjwilmsi 11:34, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks alot. BTW can you run your bot again on the same article. See if it picks up something, new ;)

PS. Hoping you can add support for Globe and Mail before April 22, 2011. That's when the Advance Polls open up. (If not, its okay...your code has helped this article alot already...so thanks.)--33rogers (talk) 02:50, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Your Awesomeness

You have done over 402,000 edits, you rock! -User:Huckamike

• Congratulations, you are now over a half-million edits in! Cheers! bd2412 T 19:24, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Inappropriate Bot Edit

I just found this old edit, which is definitely not appropriate, as the page was moved via copy-paste, and your bot just redirected the old page. I'm not sure if you have changed the code since then, but this needs to be fixed if it hasn't. Thanks, MrKIA11 (talk) 19:31, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Something odd happened there, I can't immediately see what happened, I'll investigate fully over the weekend. Rjwilmsi 23:43, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Ok, no problem. Just wanted to make you aware. MrKIA11 (talk) 23:45, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Invitation to take part in a pilot study

I am a Wikipedian, who is studying the phenomenon on Wikipedia. I need your help to conduct my research on about understanding "Motivation of Wikipedia contributors." I would like to invite you to a short survey. Please give me your valuable time, which estimates only 5 minutes’’’. cooldenny (talk) 17:41, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Don't worry, I've done this for you - I just clicked on the buttons randomly. -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 12:20, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

University Work of Wikipedia

Hello Rjwilmsi, My name is Jonathan Medeiros, I’m a graduate student and I’m doing a university work about Wikipedia. My work is about mass production of information in peer, and I'm using Wikipedia as an object of study. We developed a field research and wonder if you could answer.

1) Please list below in order of priority what else motivates you to contribute to Wikipedia.

( ) prestige in the community

( ) Contribution in the Science

( ) Recreation

( ) Self-realization

( ) Social Valuation

( ) Keep interconnectivity with other collaborators

( ) Strengthening staff - (The amount that the contributor gains acceptance or approvalof other members, strengthen social status in the community)

( ) Awards Archives (Ex: Barnstar)

( ) Increase the prestige of the world to Wikipedia

( ) Sense that all can share the benefits generated

( ) Other: _____________________________

2) List 1 to 5, where 1 is highest and 5 is lowest of important that you consider the following values ​​for Wikipedia. In the end, please explain what you consider most important.

a) AUTONOMY ( )

b) INDEPENDENCE ( )

c) LIBERATION ( )

d) CREATIVITY ( )

e) PRODUCTIVITY ( )

f) INDUSTRY ( )

g) BENEVOLENCE, CHARITY, GENEROSITY, ALTRUISM ( )

h) SOCIABILITY ( )

I) CAMARADERIE/FRIENDSHIP ( )

L) COOPERATION ( )

k) CIVIC VIRTUE ( )

Below is an explanation of each item:

AUTONOMY Collaborators are free to act according to the targets set for them. They can feel free.

INDEPENDENCE Collaborators will have independence and freedom of spirit.

LIBERATION Collaborators have the freedom to work as and when they want, they can decide by themselves.

CREATIVITY Collaborators has more freedom to explore creativity, because he does not have to follow orders that they are imposed.

PRODUCTIVITY Collaborators are always pursuing excellence in their contributions.

INDUSTRY The mass production of information opens new doors to creativity and the creation of productive practices, when compared to the industrially organized market.

BENEVOLENCE, CHARITY, GENEROSITY, ALTRUISM Collaborator does not want financial rewards, he assists in helping the communitythinking, the only reward is the reputation that he get with the collaborations they do.

SOCIABILITY Make contributions with an open heart, thinking of the common good, which is for the community as a whole.

CAMARADERIE / FRIENDSHIP, Collaborator help themselves to build something of value to everyone.

COOPERATION Collaborators help themselves to build something of value to everyone.

CIVIC VIRTUE Collaborators are arranged volunteers with common goals and promote cooperation between them.

Thank you very much for your attention, Can you send me a email with this answers? my email address is jhoumedeiros@gmail.com.

Thanks very much. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.64.241.23 (talk) 02:55, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Mars sample return mission

This bot edit was not helpful (i.e. creates an incorrect reference citation): http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mars_sample_return_mission&diff=420910077&oldid=417740068

I don't want to edit-war with a bot. Please fix this! (sdsds - talk) 03:04, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Fixed. Solution I use is to put in a non-breaking hyphen when it's a section and page combo rather than a page range; that way the bot knows not to try to change it next time. Thanks Rjwilmsi 08:42, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll follow that suggestion next time. (sdsds - talk) 08:14, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Template:Tolweb

Hi there. I'm trying to figure out this edit. tolweb is a website, not a journal. For instance, the field "journal=" will never be set. Is there a reason to do this? Best regards. --Muhandes (talk) 14:38, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

That was a screw up. I've reverted. Thanks Rjwilmsi 14:41, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, not exactly a screw up, but maybe the wrong fix. I've made a second change. Rjwilmsi 15:05, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Right you are. The template did have a problem, which you corrected. Oddly, no one noticed, maybe because this template is rarely used? Only 3 transclusions, I was expecting thousands. Seems like no one knows of it, tolweb is very commonly used. Perhaps I'll correct this. Best regards. --Muhandes (talk) 18:00, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Shakespeare Authorship Question

I appreciate the massive cleanup work you've done all over Wikipedia, Rjwilmsi, but as you must know there are drawbacks to using automated tools. In this case your AWB did what a pair of human eyes would have caught as an obvious blunder. The your edit today on Shakespeare Authorship Question changed "p. 238" to "pp. 238" and "p. 271 to pp. 271". The problem is no doubt our having had to modify the citation template usage slightly to accommodate the fact that a major source was published in UK and US editions with different pagination. The US pagination follows the UK pagination in parentheses. I'm guessing that the program you used saw the "(238-9)" after the p. 271 and "thought" there was more than one page cited. But the parenthesized number or numbers are not prefixed with a "p." or "pp.", which are implicit only. And in this case the "p." referred only to a single page, in the UK edition. Perhaps this AWB tool can be improved to handle cases like this; until that happens, please be aware that this kind of thing might happen. I have reverted those changes (but not the other changes you made with AWB in that edit, for which I'm sure that all of us who worked hard on this article are grateful). --Alan W (talk) 23:55, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I'll update the AWB logic to ignore page ranges in brackets when considering whether p or pp is appropriate. Rjwilmsi 00:31, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Great! Though I know something about computer programming, I know nothing about this AWB (maybe I'll look into eventually), and I am delighted to hear that you are able to go in there and make this modification yourself. Thanks! And keep up the good work! --Alan W (talk) 01:36, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Marine mammals and sonar

Your edit of 13:44, 29 April 2011 to Marine mammals and sonar did not appear constructive and has been reverted. I checked one of the citations Gas-bubble lesions in stranded cetaceans and it was in Nature 425, 575-576 (9 October 2003) | doi:10.1038/425575a. Your edit changed the issue number from 425 to 6958. I do not understand your motives for making this change.--Toddy1 (talk) 15:06, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

That Nature paper was printed in volume 425 and issue 6958; I changed the issue from 425 to 6958 because it wasn't right. Both values are given in the Nature URL you are using. Rjwilmsi 15:54, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. I have reverted my edit to the article.--Toddy1 (talk) 16:06, 29 April 2011 (UTC)