User talk:Rjwilmsi/Archives/2011/May

interview request

Hello, My name is Natalia Olaru and I am a final year master student in the Corporate Communication programme at the Aarhus School of Business in Denmark. I am currently working on my final paper on the topic of the motivation of users to create content on collaborative media websites, the focus being Wikipedia. As a sample I chose the English and Danish portals. I would like to invite you for an online interview on the topic of what motivates you, as a user, to participate in editing and creating articles for this platform. Your real identity, and wikipedia account will be kept confidential through the paper. I plan on doing the actual interviews in the period between 6st and the 15th of May via Skype, MSN, Google Talk or Yahoo Messenger. I am, however, open to other channels of communication too. Please let me know if you would like to participate in this interview and the preferred channel. Thank you, Natalia Olaru Email: natalia.ioana.olaru@gmail.com --MulgaEscu (talk) 12:49, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

headbomb is a cool name

i like it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.212.3.116 (talk) 23:31, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Non-breaking hyphen

Thanks for the tip about the non-breaking hyphen and AWB. How does one enter that? And how can we help make sure that they get where they need to be before AWB changes hyphens wrongly to en dashes? Dicklyon (talk) 15:22, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Copy it off the section on hyphen; let me know of any other instances. Rjwilmsi 15:24, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Journal numbering thing

Is there any reason to think that journal numbers are useful in any way? In my business (publishing chemistry papers), we do not include them in citation. They always seem redundant to me, but so do some volume numbers. The reason that I ask is that if no one cares, then you might not bother. --Smokefoot (talk) 19:22, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I suppose with most new papers now being via online access you could argue that volume, issue and even page number have lost some significance versus the print-only era. However, volume/issue number is still useful because we can't assume any reader/user of Wikipedia will have online access to the journals and not all journals have online access anyway; if you're at the local library searching without volume/issue your task may be harder. Rjwilmsi 19:45, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I beg to differ. I can't speak for all journals, but in regards of Science issue numbers are practically worthless; I don't recall having ever seen any need for them. Even in the library, before the individual issues are bound into a volume, the date is more useful. While I allow there may be cases where an issue number could be useful, including it here seems pedantic. Would you mind not doing it forScience, and perhaps even generally? - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:50, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

In the March 2011 database dump there are 9,317 citations to Science (doi starting '10.1126/science') using {{cite journal}} or {{citation}} on en-wiki, of which 8,961 have the issue number set, and 356 don't (that's >96% with the issue number). On that basis I'm confident that the majority view is against yours, and it's right to add issue numbers to citations to Science. My last round of edits in this area were to add ~202 missing issue numbers. Rjwilmsi 22:07, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

  That is hardly a fair "vote" where you have been changing the "votes" of the original editor. And even if a majority of editors preferred to have issue numbers, does that mean that I have to have them, too? That editors put them in says nothing at all about whether they are useful. So once again I will say, they are useless. Except, perhaps, for showing a concern for trivial points of learning that are of no use whatsoever. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 01:04, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

sahara smith

i am sahara smith's cousin

will you help me make her wiki article better? 66.68.99.162 (talk) 04:43, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

RjwilmsiBot and citations

Howdy. When your bot made this edit and made the plain links into cite templates, was it working under task #7?--Rockfang (talk) 20:53, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

That's task 3. Rjwilmsi 22:32, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for replying. Apparently I need to work on my reading skills. :) Rockfang (talk) 23:24, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

• Definitely a useful automation task. However, do you think the task could make the dates default to dd mmm yyyy format, because a lot of people are confused by what 2011-05-11 represents? --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 02:39, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I think that in an ideal situation it should match whatever date format is primarily already used in the article.--Rockfang (talk) 05:55, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, indeed. I see that some date insertions by RjwilmsiBot are not universally in yyyy-mm-dd format, and I'm wondering how it's done. BTW, there are now over 100 thousand articles tagged with {{use dmy dates}} and 10 thousand with {{use mdy dates}}. I'm sure these tags can be detected and dates formatted accordingly. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 06:18, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

It already follows those tags when present. Otherwise it's based on the majority format of the existing dates. Rjwilmsi 06:52, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Panel game

Hello! I saw your editing of the panel game article and would really appreciate it if you could briefly pop into a discussion on the Hollywood Squares article on whether it is a panel game (there are cited descriptions if you're unfamiliar with the show). Here's the discussion. Thank you so much! 76.105.176.44 (talk) 22:43, 18 May 2011 (UTC)