User talk:Rjwilmsi/Archives/2011/January

Captain R. T. Claridge

Thanks for your attention to the Captain R. T. Claridge article. The article is essentially in maintenance phase now (minor tweaks notwithstanding, but substantive information on this fellow has been exhausted for now, and Wikipedia has an excessive amount of incmplete articles requiring attention), and your effort in that regard is appreciated. Regards Wotnow (talk) 05:32, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Re: Drosera regia

The citation style produced by the templates (brackets for year of publication, quotation marks around titles, etc.) is not the same as that used by the article author. Since this is a featured article, the citation style should be consistent throughout. The addition of DOIs, PMIDs and so on is of course desirable, but the changes should be carried out more carefully. mgiganteus1 (talk) 01:01, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree with mgiganteus1. Consistency in references was a big deal when I sent this article up for FAC. Look at the references list in all the changes made from the last revision by LucienBot to that of Citation bot today: diff. Some references were untouched by the citation templates, leaving differences among reference style. DOIs and PMIDs are fine, but I'd appreciate the referencing style be left alone and consistent with what's already present. (NB: I had searched for all DOIs when the article was going through FAC, I may have missed a few or they may not have been obvious when I looked.) I chose not to link to jstor since it's paywalled; it's not very helpful and is like linking to an abstract at Elsevier. Most annoying, however, are the addition of unnecessary citation templates that are so far from intuitive, but I won't go further into that here. I'll go back through the edits and manually pull the lost DOIs back up to the current revision. Rkitko ^(talk) 02:49, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Templates or no templates is not such a big deal, though we don't get any metadata without them. However I find it odd that the article has standardised on not having the volume in bold? Anyway I've manually added back the extra DOIs and PMID. I also added a JSTOR link to the taxon/43 cite as I can't find a DOI and I (with no paid access to JSTOR) can see the first page of the paper. Rjwilmsi 09:28, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

cousin-german

FYI please see User talk:Philip Baird Shearer#Beware using AWB on quotations! -- PBS (talk) 20:43, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

School violence

Thank you Rjwilmsi for contacting me. You have a good idea. College students will be able to easily access virtually all of the cited sources through their college libraries and members of the general public will have access to most of the sources via their public libraries. Please go ahead in entering the DOIs, etc. We want to continue to improve the school violence entry.Iss246 (talk) 20:03, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

You're agreeing to the introduction of citation templates (this is the quick way to enter the DOIs and other extra data)? Rjwilmsi 20:05, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I am agreeing with you. The sandbox link looks very good.Iss246 (talk) 18:41, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

The school violence entry functions very well thanks to the job you did.Iss246 (talk) 23:01, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Use of AWB and the multiregional page

I don't mind the addition of PMIDs, but is there a way to get AWB to avoid mucking with other cites? I don't see a reason for replacement of dashes with emdashes between page numbers, and removal of some but not all duplicate cite bodies in cites using names can be counterproductive since editing may then inadvertently remove the last remaining cite body leaving an orphaned cite by name.

I've also reported these as AWB bugs but I don't know if they'll consider them such. I don't use AWB and I have no idea how much is automatic and how much is the choice of the user. Warren Dew (talk) 19:36, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

See my responses on the bugs page. I can see you're new to Wikipedia, so welcome, though please remember that there are already al lot of agreed standards that we all try to work towards. Rjwilmsi 19:39, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I'm not new at all; I've been editing since 2006, same as you. Edit: but I still forget to sign my comments sometimes. Warren Dew (talk) 19:44, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

DOI that don't work

You asked me this:Would be possible to get doi:10.1001/archinte.142.10.1816 to point here again by updating their record? As far as I can tell, this is one of the many American Medical Association DOI's that simply are "internal use only", which means that they do not resolve properly. --- — Preceding unsigned comment added by AManWithNoPlan (talk • contribs) 21:24, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Singapore Blue

Hey there! I am sorry, but I did not find a special site to ask (may you could tell me one if you dont know an answer?).

It is concerning "Singapore Blue"[1], the taxobox. Do you know what for an "Abraham" is meant? I mean what is the full name of this author?

--Danny 21:41, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't know. I suggest you ask at Wikipedia:WikiProject Spiders. Rjwilmsi 21:59, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Okay, thank you! --Danny 23:27, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

AutoEd

I am somewhat puzzled by the fact that your edits, using AutoEd, remove the space between the "==" and the title of headings. This is the opposite of what some bots do: they insert spaces if they find "==Section heading==" without the spaces. It is also contrary to what happens when someone begins a new section on a Talk page by clicking on "New section" and filling in the little window of "Subject/headline": then too the spaces before and after the section heading are automatically inserted. Esoglou (talk) 12:24, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that's the AutoEd default behaviour (I was using it to fix ISBN format errors). Does it particularly matter? Rjwilmsi 12:29, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Not to me. But it does seem to be a Wikipedia self-contradiction. If I start a new section in an article, should I add the spaces or not? In actual fact, I sometimes do and sometimes don't. Esoglou (talk) 12:33, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Bibcodes...

So what's the status on these things? You asked me to collaborate a while back, although I'm not exact quite sure on what/where? Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 01:39, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Status is I'll be starting on it this week. How/when I'll need your help I'm not yet sure. Rjwilmsi 08:29, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Happy 10th

File:Verre de whisky.jpg

Happy 10th anniversary of Wikipedia!

HeyBzuk (contribs) has bought you a whisky! Sharing a whisky is a great way to bond with other editors after a day of hard work. Spread the WikiLove by buying someone else a whisky, whether it be someone with whom you have collaborated or had disagreements. Enjoy!

What goes around, comes around. Spread the good cheer and camaraderie by adding {{subst:User:HJ Mitchell/WikiScotch}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Bzuk (talk) 15:22, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Hyphens

Hello. I saw your recent bot edit to F-number. Please take my comment in the sense of humor for which it is intended as I'm not critical of you nor your bot nor your edits. I'm only critical of the prevailing Wikipedia recommendations regarding hyphens or more specifically En-dashes and Em-dashes. There is another side to this discussion, found in part at Wikipedia:Hyphen luddites. Some of us feel that Wikipedia should have more sense than to waste people's energy with absurd recommendations found on Wikipedia:Manual of style#En dashes.

For those who feel obligated to purge Wikipedia of short hyphens for page ranges the En-dash may be replaced by the word "to" without hurting anybody's feelings, except for those of the short dash itself, which often feels rejected and sad after any replacement. Regards.Trilobitealive (talk) 15:36, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Degenerations/Le reel du fossé

I`m just a starting wikipedian and i`m making a page for dégénérations including le reel du fossé so may you help me? Dégénérations/Le reel du fossé.

Ebe123 (talk) 17:42, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Error?

check the edit history for this bots contrib to Harriet Chalmers Adams. How did THAT happen? good faith assumed absolutely.(mercurywoodrose not logged in)76.234.123.226 (talk) 06:05, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

You might have clarified what you think the error was. I will guess that it was the moving of the text "((That is what Harriot Chalmers Adams did when she was still alive))". That was already there at the end of the article, the bot moved the categories to the right place so that text moved. Not really an error, or were you referring to something else? Rjwilmsi 08:49, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Fancy a cup of Gatorade?

Hello there Rjwilmsi -- saw that you edited the Gatorade article in the past, and have also noticed your grand master copy-editing skills. Anyhow, I've proposed a revision to the Gatorade article, and was wondering if you might be able to take a peek and weigh in on it here. If it isn't of interest, no worries. I understand that we all have only a finite amount of time! Many thanks, Jeff Bedford (talk) 16:57, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Unprintworthy redirects

I noticed this recent edit with AWB [2]. This particular edit added the category entitled "Unprntworthy redirects". When I saw this, I realized that most all of the redirects that I have created belong in this category. Since, I have created more than 300 redirects it would take me quite awhile to go through them all in order to add most of them to this category. I am wondering if you could run your bot through the redirects that I have created, and place them in the appropriate category. Here is one place that lists them all [3]. Please feel free to respond here, on your talk page, since it is now on my watch list. Thanks in advance. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 23:39, 27 January 2011 (UTC)