Jump to content

User talk:Rjwilmsi/Archives/2011/February

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Thank you for cleaning up some of my edits. I have today been busy with "Angola" and "Ganguela" and would appreciate it if you had a critical look at those as well....if you feel like it, that is...Aflis (talk) 14:21, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Bot breaking redirects

I'm not sure what your bot is actually trying to do, but I hope it is not this. Your bot has broken many dozens of redirect pages which are now flooding onto the Short Pages reports. Please see if you can clean these up, as the redirects are being left worthless in the wake of your bot. - TexasAndroid (talk) 16:07, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I'll investigate. Rjwilmsi 16:53, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
There was a problem with mainspace pages redirecting to categories. I've reverted (I hope) all the bad edits. I'll now go through and manually re-tag where appropriate, and sort out an AWB fix for redirect to categories. Apologies for the mess. Rjwilmsi 17:27, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for your prompt action. - TexasAndroid (talk) 17:38, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
rev 7585 AWB: RemoveCats: don't pull categories from a redirect to a category. Rjwilmsi 18:03, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Wrong DOI

I have previously presumed that you check all the DOIs that you add to articles (for which many thanks). I just noticed that the DOI added to hypopituitarism points to a different article altogether. Ann Intern Med, for some unknown reason, does not seem to use DOI. Thought I'd let you know. Cheers. JFW | T@lk 20:10, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. The error originated in Adrenal insufficiency, which I fixed last month. I check for conflicts where one PMID is linked to >1 DOI, I'm missing the converse check of one DOI linked to > 1 PMID (this case), so I'll do that now, and it will avoid such errors in future. Rjwilmsi 20:33, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

AWB

On the off chance that you missed my response to your comments on the AWB page, I hope you won't mind me repeating them here:

I'm not following the lookaround link. Could you give a simple example? Let's say I want to return a hit for any string that contains a sequence other than (abc|def)? (For example, a language has an alphabet in which several letters only occur in certain digraphs, like English qu, Swahili ch, Japanese wa, or Mandarin ji ~ ju; I want to find any letters which do not occur in that alphabet, but also any q which is not in qu, and any c which is not in ch, any w which is not in wa, etc. It would be easiest if I could run a search for NOT(a|b|ch|d|ea|...|ji|ju|qu|wa).

As for duplicated letters, I'm looking for repetitions of any member of a set like [A-Za-z]. Do I need to list each 'x+' as a separate rule?

Thanks, — kwami (talk) 21:28, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Typos page uses some lookarounds either as ?<! or ?!. Use [A-Za-z]+ for a repeated set. Rjwilmsi 07:53, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

User_talk:Citation_bot#Bibcodes

What's the status on this? Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 07:29, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I already have the 590,000 row mysql database of all templated wikipedia journal cites set up, I've just got about 4,000 edits to do first, then I'll be looking into it. Rjwilmsi 07:51, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Editing Barnstar

100,000 Edits
I, Bugboy52.4, award you for reaching 100,000 edits according to the List of Wikipedians by number of edits generated 11:45 pm, 24 February 2009. Keep up the good work!________________________________________________________________

hello, I would like to know what is your contribution to the page George Macovescu? Thank you for your answer. Valentin Macovescu —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.109.87.251 (talk) 13:23, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

L.A. Reid

Hi there! The bot did a good job on Feb. 5th at L.A. Reid but the work was in the middle of a long series of unsourced POV edits that had to be reverted, so the good stuff with the refs was lost. Rather than me trying to put it back in, could you send the bot back to the article? Thanks for your help, Jusdafax 21:57, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Opportunity to comment on Batavia

There is a discussion starting up at Talk:Batavia (disambiguation), that may be of interest to you. The subject is technically a page move discussion, but the purpose of the discussion is to decide where Batavia should redirect. Until earlier today, Batavia redirected to History of Jakarta, but during this discussion, it is redirecting to Batavia (disambiguation). Your comments and suggestions are welcome.

Thanks for your help. HuskyHuskie (talk) 22:41, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

You are receiving this because you are one of the principal editors of one of the articles that is linked to Batavia (disambiguation). This notice is being posted to all of the top three editors of each of these articles (in terms of total edits), with the following exceptions:

  • editors who are blocked
  • anonymous IP editors
  • editors who, despite ranking in the top three of edits to an article, have only a single edit to said article

This is an attempt to be a neutrally-phrased posting in keeping with the principles of WP:CANVASS. If you find anything in the wording or the manner posted to be a violation of that guideline, please notify me at my talk page.

ISBN format

I don't follow this edit. AIUI the ranges for 978-0- or 0- are 00-19; 200-699; 7000-8499; 85000-89999; 900000-949999; 9500000-9999999. That would make 978-0-7867- and 0-86012- correct. Regards, Mr Stephen (talk) 15:50, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Ah, yes. I was caching values from other articles, assuming that an ISBN with the right number of dashes on a featured article would be correct. An assumption that I was dubious of in general use, and this example proves to be a bad one, even though this run was on featured articles only. As you see there are a number of articles that have ISBN 978-0-7867-1738-5 done wrongly as 978-0-78671-738-5. I'm going to change approach to only take values from the WorldCat xISBN API, so this error will be avoided, and the other articles will get corrected soon. If I made the error on any other articles it will get changed back soon too. [Trust in featured articles -1%] Thanks Rjwilmsi 17:54, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not A Reliable Source (big smile). Regards, Mr Stephen (talk) 20:44, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Ah so that's the logic for the ISBNs... That should be implemented in AWB! This might be useful.Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 22:14, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

After you're done with the bibcodes...

Could you check out...

?

These are database scans (January dump) for various URL that could be templated. Bare urls can be converted, as can the |url= of {{citation}}/{{cite xxx}} converted to |id={{Foobar|Identifier}}. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 15:01, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I will add this to the list, though we should conclude the discussion over the journal identifiers list first. I'm not convinced that it's needed to add parameters for all identifiers, only the most common ones. Rjwilmsi 17:55, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

AWB edit suggestion

Although I personally agree with the changes you made have been making to the citations I noticed that several do not change the rendering of the page and I wanted to warn you that I just had my AWB access removed and the debate is ongoing at ANI for doing much more than that because the changes didn't change anything to the rendering of the page. I just wanted to let you know so that someone doesn't do the same to you. --Kumioko (talk) 17:30, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Shapley-Folkman lemma: Thanks!

Thanks for your great copy-editing, which corrected many long-standing deviations from WP:MOS. I really appreciate your help!

Best regards,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (Discussion) 14:11, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Undone bot edit

I undid this edit; I suspect the bot is technically right, as a subsequent edition, with back cover visible on Amazon, clearly shows an ISBN that agrees with the bot. However, the actual cited edition has "140". It seems clear this is a misprint but I'm reluctant to change it when the only ISBN on the book itself is as currently given. Has this situation ever come up before? Is there a precedent for how to deal with this? Mike Christie (talk – library) 01:31, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Ditto for this edit. Mike Christie (talk – library) 01:33, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Why do you think we need to display the dashes incorrectly as per the previous edition? Rjwilmsi 07:44, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
I'm OK with changing it as the bot did if there's agreement that's what we need to do. My concern was that the code doesn't match what's on the book, but since the ISBN exists independently of the book I suppose that's OK. Mike Christie (talk – library) 10:14, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Well, the ISBN number still matches the book of course; booksource links will operate as before. Do you think this needs further discussion, and if so, where? I remind you and any others reading this that the bot task will not be changing the ISBN numbers, only the hyphen formatting. Any actually invalid ISBNs (too long, too short, wrong checksum) are logged, but not changed. On that basis I personally don't think further discussion is needed. Thanks Rjwilmsi 13:50, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
0-14- is Penguin. Their misprints are so common that there is a note at List of group-0 ISBN publisher codes. The correct hyphenation should be used if the book has it wrong. What to do if the ISBN in the book is entirely wrong or has the wrong checksum (last digit) is another matter. Mr Stephen (talk) 07:55, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Citation template

I am at a loss why you would impose this citation template without discussing the imposition on the talk page (against mos), and then fail to include both the authors and the title of the citation. --Epipelagic (talk) 12:44, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Okay, that's a couple of questions. Firstly, since I run the citation bot after adding a cite journal template (to pick up the extra DOI, PMC entries etc. as it did here) I don't worry about missing out authors/titles when I know the bot will add them back for me (looks like bot finished 3 minutes after my edit). Secondly, re citation templates, the article prior to my edit was using ~10 cite journal templates and a number of other citation-family templates, so I think my edit increased citation consistency as well as adding extra DOI and PMC indexes. Rjwilmsi 17:41, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Oh... and I thought you must be a bit dotty! That seems like a really good idea–I'm thinking about emulating you. --Epipelagic (talk) 18:31, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Temporary block

I have temporarily blocked this bot, as I believe there is insufficient community consensus for the mass conversions proposed. Here I refer not only to the mass conversions to ISBN-13's (which I personally favor), but also the hyphenation of the (already long) ISBN-13's, The block is therefore intended to limit damage, while clarity is sought on these issues. Thanks, Geometry guy 21:24, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I would have thought asking me to stop the specific task would have been sufficient. Please unblock so that I may continue to operate the other approved tasks, until we sort out this one. Rjwilmsi 21:38, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
And, if relevant, I am not performing a conversion from ISBN-10 to ISBN-13, and do not think that was within the remit of the task approval (originally requested, decided against early on). Rjwilmsi 21:39, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
I blocked because the bot was currently active, and it is the fastest way to limit damage. This is normal procedure as indicated by the block button on the bot user page. As you are now aware of the issue, I will unblock. Thanks, Geometry guy 21:43, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the bot approval, I commend your comment that "On reflection I think some editors may object to ISBN-10 to ISBN-13 conversion", as it shows awareness of the community dimension in bot approvals. Nevertheless, the bot was approved with the "Function overview" unchanged ("Reformat 10 digit ISBNs, or 13 digit ISBNs without dashes to use the 13-digit dashed ISBN standard per WP:ISBN."). This is not the first time I have seen insular and poor decision-making at BAG. I hope you will be motivated to encourage better practice! Thanks, Geometry guy 22:04, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I am going to defer any further comments on this issue and what surrounds it for 24 hours. Shortly I will post to WT:ISBN some stats about ISBN usage on Wikipedia prior to the start of the bot's task in order, I hope, to inform discussion about ISBN usage on Wikipedia. Rjwilmsi 22:11, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Many thanks for this positive response. Geometry guy 22:44, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
As an addendum, I find edits such as this very impressive. Geometry guy 00:09, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Merge discussion for Music and the brain

An article that you have been involved in editing, Music and the brain, has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Morton Shumway—talk 21:36, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Richard Devon

Please do not vandalize other articles, as you did to Richard Devon. Mallen22 (talk) 03:14, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Would you please explain what "vandalism" you are referring to? Rjwilmsi 07:47, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Rjwilmsi/Archives/2011/February&oldid=1143267549"