Wikiwand AI

User talk:Jonesey95/Archive2018

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Happy New Year Jonesey95!

Happy New Year!
Hello Jonesey95:
Thanks for all of your contributions to improve the encyclopedia for Wikipedia's readers, and have a happy and enjoyable New Year! Cheers, --Nevé–selbert 00:15, 1 January 2018 (UTC)



Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks (static)}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.

Copy-edit query

I have copy edited Beef Island. In my opinion it needs breaking into two articles. One, Beef Island, made up only of the current lead. The second, Beef Island development controversy, made up of everything else and with the first paragraph below the current lead as the lead of the new article.

Now even if I squint I can't see how tearing an article in half counts as copy-editing, which makes it above my pay grade. So, what with being new here, if energetic, I thought that I would pass it on to you for any action or non-action. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:27, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

PS It then needs {{Sections}} Gog the Mild (talk) 21:36, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
I don't think it's big enough or the content of the two sections is different enough to warrant splitting. See Wikipedia:Splitting. If someone were interested in either the island or the controversy, this 625-word page serves as a reasonable destination for learning about either or both. IMHO. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:48, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
Fair enough. Thank you. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:25, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Mountain railways of India copyedit request

Jonesey95, today's entry on the GOCE Requests page by 168.233.20.6 is one of the Punyaboy-related IPs who tagged so many of the India railway articles back in the day prior to Punyaboy being blocked for socking, though someone else put in the copyedit request back in July. The article has been undergoing a community GA reassessment for many months, with little movement: the nominator has been pressing for a delisting for reasons of varied cogency, but so far no one is biting, and the reassessment has yet to be closed.

Under the recent GOCE rule change, IPs who have had little to do with an article are not eligible to make Requests, and 168.233.20.6 has only edited the lede, and that only today. I think this request should be disallowed, and the July-dated copyedit template allowed to eventually bear fruit. I did notice that you did a bit of lede cleanup right after the Request was made. I'll let you decide what to do with the Request, but I thought you should know some history here. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:29, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the update. I can't (and shouldn't be allowed to) make decisions like this without consensus. Can you please post this on the Requests talk page so that we have a record of it? Also please link to evidence that the IP is Punyaboy-related and to the "community GA reassessment", which I couldn't find on the article's talk page. Thanks. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:35, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
Jonesey95, I wasn't aware that non-participating IP requests needed consensus, any more than a third request from the same editor would. As for the connection to Punyaboy, what I knew at the time was written in Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Punyaboy/Archive; while the IPs weren't blocked (they rarely are at SPI, or even checked), they were all active at the time, including this one. Link to GAR is here. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:39, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Another copy edit query.

I am copy editing Battle of Melantias. This is a topic which I know (quite a bit) about. It is appallingly written, and so it took me a while to realise that it bears almost no resemblance to the historical events. To such an extent that it is sophisticated vandalism. I had a look at the contributions of the editor responsible, 84.40.72.28, and they are all on similar lines. Screeds of broken English with faux references, just on topic enough not to be obvious nonsense. In one case, Pirdop Apostle, he was reverted with a comment "removing a section that is highly likely a hoax". He has been posting since late September 2017.

Is it possible to have his IP address blocked? (Meanwhile I will start working through his input and restore the various articles he has wrecked - which will take me away from copy editing for a while.) Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:45, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

It is very likely that user Michael of Potuka is the same or a closely linked editor. (Sigh. Can I go back to just writing articles?) Gog the Mild (talk) 23:19, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
Such is life at WP. Try not to get too worked up about it, since trolls are persistent. Step one is to post a note on the IP editor's talk page. You have to assume good faith and show that you have given the editor a chance to respond. If you get nothing from that, look at the instructions at WP:AIV. If the edits are not clearly vandalism, try WP:ANI, where you should provide a narrative explanation with links to diffs (go to View History, show the difference between two versions, and copy the resulting URL). – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:22, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
I'm not worked up, thanks; but it is frustrating. The IP address is a special page with no talk page, which is why I ran to you. Checking now Michael of Potuka has a talk page, and a stern talking to from a bot on. I shall add to it. Thank you for the sound advice. I think that pretending that I am assuming good faith is going to be a challenge. He has made some useful contributions, and seems quite clear that he knew what he was doing when he vandalised. No doubt it will be character forming. This copy editing lark is quite a learning experience. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:50, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
IP editors have talk pages. See User talk:84.40.72.28. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:58, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Well, well. Thank you very much. I was looking at the contributions page. D'oh! Gog the Mild (talk) 00:09, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

lang and |script=

Just so you know, |script= is not supported by {{lang}}. This is because is is easier to write a {{lang}} template with a complete IETF language tag than it is to write the equivalent thing with the |script=, |region=, and/or |variant= subtag parameters.

I have fixed about 175 {{lang}} templates that were written {{lang|??|script=????|...}} → {{lang|??-????|...}}

—Trappist the monk (talk) 20:09, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Oof, sorry to make work for you. Is this correct? I have a script that I have been using to make these conversions. I adjusted it before making the edit linked here. Thanks. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:26, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
Russian: да, romanized: da, lit. 'yes' – in the sense that ru-Latn text was italicized before. Because 'Viktor Platonovič Nekrasov' is a proper name, probably not. I kept running into that: proper names as titles of films, book, persons, places, ... Too much context knowledge required to make a script really do the right thing. But, the fixes that you are making are, I think, spot-on because the rendered output before the module with auto-italics and the rendered output after auto-italics is the same. Because code ru implies or infers Cyrillic, ri-Latn is required (even though the module will italicize without the Latn subtag.
Why sorry? Am I not making work for you?
—Trappist the monk (talk) 20:51, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
Touche (to the last question). I like the kind of work you make, though. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:08, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Nomination for merging of Template:Infobox UK school

Template:Infobox UK school has been nominated for merging with Template:Infobox school. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Steven (Editor) (talk) 19:24, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

template problem

Hi, while trying to add the {{subst:uw-editsummary}} template to a user talk page, it showed an error with the template "Div col" "cols"-parameter. I see you just recently made an edit to that template involving the "cols" parameter. Could you double-check your edit and see if that's the issue? If not, could you take a look at the edit summary notice template and see if you can find the source of the problem? Thanks - theWOLFchild 23:45, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

note: I changed {{Div col|"cols"-2}} to {{Div col|2}} on the edit summary notice template and it now works. It seems your edit may have affected templates (and articles?) using {{Div col|"cols"-2}} to split lists. I don't know how many pages might/will be affected, but hopefully you can look into it. Thanks again. - theWOLFchild 23:58, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) The parameter that works is |cols=, not |"cols"= (with quotation marks). The parameter called |"cols"= never worked, as far as I know, and now it generates an error message when you preview it. Your substitution would have worked fine, I believe. I have updated the uw-editsummary template. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:00, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
No problem, but fyi, that template has worked with "cols" (in the quotation marks) for years, never had a problem, I'm the one that added it to the edit summ notice a few years ago. Since then, I've gone with ((Div col|2)) going forward, as it's quicker & easier, but some older pages will still have the older version. Anyway, I glad it's sorted out now. Thanks. - theWOLFchild 06:28, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
It "worked" only by chance, because the default number of columns was 2, so {div col|"cols"=2} was the same as {div col} with no arguments at all. – Jonesey95 (talk) 06:32, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

{{Div col|"cols"=2}}{{Div col end}}

Is this gone now? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 00:11, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

I have removed all instances of the unsupported parameter |"cols"= from article space. The parameter |cols= (without quotation marks) is still supported, but deprecated. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:14, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
News to me, what's the un-deprecated way to do it? ThanksKeith-264 (talk) 00:47, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
See the documentation for {{Div col}}. The |cols= parameter has been deprecated since 2014. The recommended parameter to set column width is |colwidth=. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:22, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Keith-264 (talk) 09:31, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

John McPhee

Actually, that paragraph in which you removed "Coal Train" is a messy mixture of articles and book titles. The Uncommon Carriers book that contains the "Coal Train" piece was already listed, I just noticed. Perhaps we should try to separate out what's an article or section from what's a book? Like The Control of Nature which contains the piece on the Atchafalaya River (I forget the title of that piece, but my favorite in that book was "Los Angeles Against the Mountains" which is suddenly very current in light of the recent fires and debris flows). I just finished McPhee's Draft Number 4 which makes me want to read a few more. I have about 2 shelf feet of his books in my library already, but not Coming into the Country which figures well in his latest book about the writing process. Dicklyon (talk) 05:46, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

You should pick up Coming into the Country. It's a good book for winter reading (assuming that you are in the northern hemisphere). As for the paragraph in question, take a hack at it. I decided not to edit war about "Coal Train", since I have bigger fish to fry, but to me, it clearly didn't belong, being an essay (not a book) and already being part of a book listed in the paragraph.
I too, have a two-foot shelf of McPhee books and a few more that don't fit on a regular-sized shelf. He and E. B. White are my favorite prose writers. I have every essay of his that has been published between book covers, as far as I know. I just received the new one as a gift, and I'm looking forward to reading it soon. – Jonesey95 (talk) 06:41, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
I will get Coming into the Country and maybe try to clean up that section a bit. Probably should list books and essays separately? Dicklyon (talk) 07:33, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
I wouldn't list all of the essays; we already have a list of the books. If there are essays that are notable (i.e. covered in reliable sources), those might be worth mentioning. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:37, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Template:Przypisy listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Template:Przypisy. Since you had some involvement with the Template:Przypisy redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. PRehse (talk) 14:01, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Assistance re: Kripashankar Patel Bishnoi

Hi! As part of the Jan 2018 WP:GOCE Drive, I have been working on Kripashankar Patel Bishnoi. From the infobox on the page, news articles, and results tables within Wikipedia, it appears that the title of the page should be Kripa Shankar Patel Bishnoi (not Kripashankar...). What is the correct procedure for changing the page title/article name? Thank you, in advance, for your help! Laatu (talk) 15:51, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

At the upper right of the article page, to the right of View History, you should see a drop-down menu with an option called "Move". Click it and enter the new article name. It is not something that should be done often, but it looks like you have done adequate research. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:55, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
Thank you - for the answer AND for the very quick response! Laatu (talk) 23:40, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

January 2018 GOCE barnstars

The Modest Barnstar
This barnstar is awarded to Jonesey95 for copy edits totaling over 4,000 words (including bonus and rollover words) during the GOCE January 2018 Backlog Elimination Drive. Congratulations, and thank you for your contributions! Tdslk (talk) 04:42, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Elcor, Minnesota

Hello, Jonesey95! Thank you for your copy edits resulting in GA status for the article Elcor, Minnesota. The article's prose reads and flows much better thanks to you. The article is currently up for FA review. One of the editors had requested that the lead section "be broadened to effectively summarize the body of the article with appropriate weight." I have done this: would you look it over and provide any copy editing you see fit? Thanks! DrGregMN (talk) 15:24, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Done. It was in pretty good shape already. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:43, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
Hello again, Jonesey95! The article Elcor, Minnesota is progressing through the FAC review process. Could I ask you to look at the Geology section? I have made some edits at the request of reviewer Finetooth, but am not certain I like the way it reads. If you can improve upon it, please feel free. Thanks! DrGregMN (talk) 02:11, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
DrGregMN: I took a stab at it. See if you like it. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:47, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
Jonsey95, you are awesome. As always, you have my profound thanks! DrGregMN (talk) 01:41, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
Hello again, Jonesey95! Another copy edit request for this article, second paragraph in the establishment section. Compare the revisions if you would, please. I've been trying to add some additional information which I feel is relevant to the article before its listing as TFA, but it doesn't seem to read right. I might have made things a little more murky instead of providing clarification. Would you have a look? As always, thank you! DrGregMN (talk) 23:19, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
I made some minor improvements. I think it reads a little better. – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:34, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
That's why I love what you do Jonsey95! It does read better, but I did make the article more murky. It was actually the Minnesota Iron Company which had controlling interest in Petit and Robinson, not the other way around. My only other problem is the sentence about the Minnesota Steamship Company being vertically integrated with the Minnesota Iron Company. It makes it sound like it was an existing company bought out by the Minnesota Iron Company in 1889 when in fact it was organized by the Minnesota Iron Company to carry ore for its mines. Could you please take another look? I made some minor changes to the last paragraph of the abandonment section as well, but I think it reads okay. Thanks! DrGregMN (talk) 13:58, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

GOCE in use template

Jonesey95, you may wish to comment at User talk:SMcCandlish#What is the meaning of a GOCEinuse template?. I would be sorry to lose the "GOCEinuse" template.  – Corinne (talk) 23:01, 13 February 2018 (UTC) I'm sorry. I can't figure out how to include the curly brackets and make the link not show the entire template on your talk page.  – Corinne (talk) 23:03, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

February 2018 blitz bling

The Modest Barnstar
This barnstar is awarded to Jonesey95 for copy edits totaling over 2,000 words (including rollover words) during the GOCE February 2018 Copy Editing Blitz. Congratulations, and thank you for your contributions! Miniapolis 17:00, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

GOCE February 2018 news

Guild of Copy Editors February 2018 News

Welcome to the February 2018 GOCE newsletter in which you will find Guild updates since the December edition. We got to a great start for the year, holding the backlog at nine months. 100 requests were submitted in the first 6 weeks of the year and were swiftly handled with an average completion time of 9 days.

Coordinator elections: In December, coordinators for the first half of 2018 were elected. Jonesey95 remained as lead coordinator and Corrine, Miniapolis and Tdslk as assistant coordinators. Keira1996 stepped down as assistant coordinator and was replaced by Reidgreg. Thanks to all who participated!

End of year reports were prepared for 2016 and 2017, providing a detailed look at the Guild's long-term progress.

January drive: We set out to remove April, May, and June 2017 from our backlog and all December 2017 Requests (a total of 275 articles). As with previous years, the January drive was an outstanding success and by the end of the month all but 57 of these articles were cleared. Officially, of the 38 who signed up, 21 editors recorded 259 copy edits (490,256 words).

February blitz: This one-week copy-editing blitz ran from 11 through 17 February, focusing on Requests and the last articles tagged in May 2017. At the end of the week there were only 14 pending requests, with none older than 20 days. Of the 11 who signed up, 10 editors completed 35 copy edits (98,538 words).

Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators: Jonesey95, Miniapolis, Corinne, Tdslk, and Reidgreg.

To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:00, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

ISBN for non English literature

Our bots can't manage that. Titles in English only. Thanks. 81.230.36.59 (talk) 23:18, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

81.230.36.59, I have no idea what you are referring to. If you link to one of my edits, or to an article, I may be able to help. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:24, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia Edit-a-Thon: Jewish Women Artists (March 8, Oregon Jewish Museum)

On March 8 (International Women's Day), the Oregon Jewish Museum and Center for Holocaust Education and artist Shoshana Gugenheim will be hosting a Wikipedia edit-a-thon to create and improve Wikipedia articles about Jewish women artists. Click here for more information. You can also express interest or suggest articles to create or improve here. This event is free and open to the public, and will serve as both a public art action and a public educational program. Participation is welcome in person and remotely (for those outside of Portland). MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:25, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Art+Feminism Wikipedia Edit-a-thon (March 10, Pacific Northwest College of Art)

On Saturday, March 10 (11am to 4pm), the Pacific Northwest College of Art (PNCA) will be hosting a Wikipedia edit-a-thon to create and improve Wikipedia articles about art, feminism, and women. You can read details on the Facebook event page, or this Wikipedia meetup page. Tutorials for new editors, reference materials, childcare, and refreshments will be provided. Bring your laptop, power cord and ideas for entries that need updating or creation. For the editing-averse, you're welcome to stop by to show your support! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:50, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Continuation War + Winter War

Thanks a thousand for revising the old citations at Continuation War! Judging from its page history, they date from a time before the sfn-template or similar even existed (I'm assuming before 2009 based on a quick check). All the substance clean-up and checking/updating that the actual references are in order took enough time and toil for me so I didn't bother with the "technical" side of citations. If you and GOCE are ever up to it, Winter War has a similar problem with citations (otherwise it's an FA already and has been through a few non-GOCE c/e rounds). Or should I put it in as a request as well? Manelolo (talk) 14:42, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Wow, Winter War looks like a lot of work, but worth it to ensure that those short citations work. The nice thing about {{sfn}} is that you can run a background script to show you any that don't work. The old citations in Winter War don't do that, so if they are broken, there is no easy way to know. I'll see if I can rig up some sort of find-and-replace script to clean up those citations. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:52, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
I am done with the sfn conversion at Continuation War. As for Winter War, its citations are very consistent and look good (on the rendered page), they appear to be working, and it's an FA, so I would be reluctant to mess with it, per CITEVAR. Verifiability and consistency of formatting are the most important things with citations. I once did a ton of work to make the citations at Jane Austen more consistent and less ambiguous, and I was reverted wholesale by editors who wanted short footnotes that were unverifiable and did not link to the full citations; go figure. A year and a half later, the citations are still inconsistent and ambiguous at that article, but once bitten, twice shy. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:37, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Iveta Mukuchyan

Hello! Recently, I have nominated an article for copy editing and I have seen that you copy edit articles. If you have an interest in taking a look at the article, please do so. If possible, I would be so grateful. Harout (talk) 20:52 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Fake date stamp for archiving. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:59, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Review of Copy Editing Changes

I would like to help with copy editing and Wikipedia has chosen an article for me. There is a copy editing template on it, and after I make the changes I would want a review of them before removing the template. Is there a designated forum for reviewing specified articles?

Thank you. Falconious (talk) 16:32, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

I recommend Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors. I will make one suggestion that I would make to any new Wikipedia copy-editor: keep in mind that the articles that have been in our backlog for the longest time are typically still there for a reason. They are longer (more words) than the average article in our backlog, or messier, or somehow more difficult to copy-edit. If you find yourself looking at an article and are unsure how to proceed, sometimes it is best to leave it alone and gain experience by working on a more straightforward edit. Those can often be found in articles tagged in some of the newer backlog months (e.g. November 2017, December 2017, or January 2018). Articles in the very newest month or two are also sometimes tricky, because they may not have had many eyeballs on them yet and may be a total disaster. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:56, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
Very much obliged. The article chosen is very recent, and I will keep in mind your advice.—Falconious (talk) 14:57, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

March 2018 drive bling

The Modest Barnstar
This barnstar is awarded to Jonesey95 for copy edits totaling over 4,000 words (including bonus and rollover words) during the GOCE March 2018 Backlog Elimination Drive. Congratulations, and thank you for your contributions! Miniapolis 19:54, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for giving out the barnstars! – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:06, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Art+Feminism Wikipedia Edit-a-thon (April 13, University of Oregon)

On Friday, April 13 (3pm to 6pm), the University of Oregon will be hosting a Wikipedia edit-a-thon to create and improve Wikipedia articles about art and feminism. You can learn more at the Dashboard page, or our Wikipedia meetup page. Tutorials for new editors, reference materials, and snacks will be provided. Please bring your laptop, power cord and ideas for entries that need updating or creation. For the editing-averse, we urge you to stop by to show your support and have snacks! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:01, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Precious

copy-editing

Thank you for quality articles beginning with List of mayors of Eugene, Oregon, then Nike OTC Marathon and Virgil Abloh, for copy-editing thousands of articles, coordinating the Guild of Copy Editors and creating its award, for "I don't take anything that happens on Wikipedia personally.", - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:15, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you! – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:46, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Upcoming changes to wikitext parsing

Hello,

There will be some changes to the way wikitext is parsed during the next few weeks. It will affect all namespaces. You can see a list of pages that may display incorrectly at Special:LintErrors. Since most of the easy problems have already been solved at the English Wikipedia, I am specifically contacting tech-savvy editors such as yourself with this one-time message, in the hope that you will be able to investigate the remaining high-priority pages during the next month.

There are approximately 10,000 articles (and many more non-article pages) with high-priority errors. The most important ones are the articles with misnested tags and table problems. Some of these involve templates, such as infoboxes, or the way the template is used in the article. In some cases, the "error" is a minor, unimportant difference in the visual appearance. In other cases, the results are undesirable. You can see a before-and-after comparison of any article by adding ?action=parsermigration-edit to the end of a link, like this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Foss?action=parsermigration-edit (which shows a difference in how {{infobox ship}} is parsed).

If you are interested in helping with this project, please see Wikipedia:Linter. There are also some basic instructions (and links to even more information) at https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-ambassadors/2018-April/001836.html You can also leave a note at WT:Linter if you have questions.

Thank you for all the good things you do for the English Wikipedia. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 21:18, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Whatamidoing (WMF), thanks for the note. I have fixed some Linter errors in the past, but the help text is woefully inadequate to assist me with fixing things like the HTML 5 misnesting error. Linter reports that there is a problem in the infobox at Euphrates Islamic Liberation Front, for example, and it looks like it might have something to do with the span tag, but the help text doesn't have any information about how one might fix the problem. If the help text were better or at least provided a lot more examples, the problems would be easier to fix, and we might have more people willing to work on them. – Jonesey95 (talk) 02:46, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
Let's centralize it at WT:Linter, where you've left a note about how you fixed that article. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 19:08, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. I'll help if I can. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:53, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

April 2018 blitz bling

The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar
This barnstar is awarded to Jonesey95 for copy edits totaling over 4,000 words (including rollover words) during the GOCE April 2018 Copy Editing Blitz. Congratulations, and thank you for your contributions! Miniapolis 15:43, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Vandalism for CE request Abbadia Alpina

I was plunking around in Abbadia Alpina trying to get things started (though I forgot to mark that I had taken it), but shortly after I had made a few minor edits someone pasted a multi-page essay on child development in the lead and deleted the whole history section. I removed the offending garbage and notated. In the edit history it appears this page is prone to vandalism, so I wasn’t sure if you wanted us to withhold our efforts here. VigilanteSilver (talk) 04:43, 29 April 2018 (UTC) VigilanteSilver (talk) 04:43, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

That looks more like an edit from someone new to Wikipedia than vandalism. I would go ahead and edit this article, though the task is more "cleanup" (in this case, converting bullets to prose and adding some section headers) than copy editing. If you're feeling generous, you could also add Template:Infobox frazione to the article. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:27, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Citation consistency

More information unnamed refs, named refs ...
reference info for Dodo
unnamed refs 92
named refs 41
self closed 62
cs1 refs 140
cs1 templates 133
cs1-like refs 1
cs1-like templates 1
sfn templates 52
webarchive templates 2
use xxx dates dmy
cs1|2 dmy dates 11
cs1|2 dmy access dates 41
cs1|2 mdy access dates 1
cs1|2 dmy archive dates 41
cs1|2 ymd archive dates 1
cs1|2 last/first 125
cs1|2 author 3
List of cs1 templates

  • Cite book (2)
  • cite book (21)
  • Cite journal (3)
  • cite journal (88)
  • cite magazine (1)
  • Cite news (1)
  • cite news (7)
  • cite web (10)
List of cs1-like templates

  • cite iucn (1)
List of sfn templates

  • sfn (52)
explanations
Close
More information unnamed refs, named refs ...
reference info for Rodrigues solitaire
unnamed refs 23
named refs 23
self closed 53
cs1 refs 45
cs1 templates 45
cs1-like refs 1
cs1-like templates 1
use xxx dates dmy
cs1|2 dmy dates 1
cs1|2 dmy access dates 1
cs1|2 last/first 44
List of cs1 templates

  • cite book (14)
  • cite journal (30)
  • cite web (1)
List of cs1-like templates

  • cite iucn (1)
explanations
Close

Hi, thanks for the offer, as discussed, the articles dodo and Rodrigues solitaire originally had a citation style similar to for example Broad-billed parrot, where all citations with a single page range are listed under references, and only those with broken up page ranges are listed under "works cited". But at some point, a now blocked editor changed it all to the style currently used, which I think is hard to manage. Therefore, when I added citations since, I used the original style, so now those articles use a weird mix of styles which doesn't look very pleasing. I've long wanted to change it back (I did so for some shorter articles), but it just seems a very overwhelming task, and I'm not so fond of citation editing... I think this would also improve the chance of Rodrigues solitaire becoming TFA at some point. By the way, I think the only citations in those articles that have broken up page ranges are Cheke & Hume 2008 and Fuller 2001. FunkMonk (talk) 14:56, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Can you please provide links to previous versions that are formatted in the way you prefer? Has there been any discussion on those articles' talk pages about citation formats? – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:10, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
Yep, here are the diffs for dodo and for Rodrigues solitaire. I brought it up on the dodo article's talk page here, with no answer. As you can see here, I was initially ok with the edits, but that was mainly because those were my first GAs, and I had little knowledge about how any of it worked. It was later discussed in this talk page of an article where I've since made the citations consistent myself. FunkMonk (talk) 15:27, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
Let's talk about Dodo first. The version that was promoted to FA had a consistent citation style, using short footnotes in the "Footnotes" section and long citations in the "Sources" section. If you're asking me to move any long citations from the Footnotes section to the Sources section, I'll be happy to do that. Making a citation style change away from the style that was in place when the article was promoted to FA would require a consensus on the article's talk page before I would be willing to do that work. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:12, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
I could do that, but I have little hope that such a request would get much attention (considering my earlier request there). I'll try to ping the FAC reviewers, if they are still here. It seems Rodrigues solitaire had the original style when it was promoted, though, so it should be fine to change back. Far the most of my other FAC nominations had that style too when passing, so it has at least been accepted multiple times. FunkMonk (talk) 16:22, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
Looking at Rodrigues solitaire, I see the clear, apparently undiscussed changes that were made, apparently in violation of CITEVAR, in September 2012. Was there any objection to those changes at that time? I'm curious why the changes were not reverted or objected to on the talk page? There is no requirement to do so, but why, more than five years later, is this an issue? An honest question. There is no statute of limitations on violations of guidelines and policy, but upsetting a five-year status quo is not something to be done lightly. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:23, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
As above, I simply didn't know much, as those two were the first articles I ever nominated for GAN and FAC (I've been their main editor since). So I took the editor's word for it that it was better until I actually had to add more citations. So as you can see, I already brought up the issue back in 2013, but no one commented. More time went, and the citations became more and more inconsistent. The amount of time passed is just because I didn't know how to approach it, and was busy with other things. So regardless of what style is to be used, I think it can be said that the current mixture is problematic. It has to be made consistent at some point, so I would prefer the original style, since I'm (de facto) pretty much the only one who has to work with it (I've expanded both articles significantly since they were promoted, to keep them up to date with subsequent research). FunkMonk (talk) 16:35, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
That all sounds reasonable. Let's give the talk page discussions a few days to run their course, if anyone is interested. It's no fun having a bunch of work reverted, so I'd rather wait for objections before starting the work. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:49, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
That's fine, they waited five years, they can wait a little longer, hehe... It isn't a pressing issue as such, it just has to be done sooner or later, and as mentioned, I think Rodrigues solitaire might be inappropriate as a TFA in the shape it is now (dodo was TFA long ago). Due to this discussion, I just noticed it's supposedly "national pigeon day" on June 13, so it may be timely for an extinct pigeon TFA... FunkMonk (talk) 16:54, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Donetsk National University of Economics and Trade

Hi,Jonesey95. I Yakovenko Yuri. I work at the Donetsk National University of Economics and Trade named after Mikhail Tugan-Baranovsky. Thank you so much for making a quality review of the our article "Donetsk National University of Economics and Trade" If we understand you correctly, we encountered certain copyright issues with information that is listed on the Wikipedia site. Please, we kindly ask you to indicate what information and documents you need to provide to the university to confirm the right to publish information in the English Wikipedia from the official site. Also, we ask you to specify a postal address for sending confirmation documents. Thanks in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Юрій Яковенко (talk • contribs) 22:19, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

I think that the correct page is Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. Anyone reading this page is welcome to correct me. – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:20, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Good day! Thank you for the information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Юрій Яковенко (talk • contribs) 20:51, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

n/a

About this. What is the item/info which is not applicable for inserting in that box? I assume that box is not intended for anything in the first place, so why not have it removed? I am asking for your motive of revert. Any specific reason or it looked odd wrt previous pages? Harsh Rathod Poke me! 14:29, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Because the row is for totals, and we don't total that column. It is the same format as all of the other barnstar pages. It's a two-year-old page that doesn't need any further edits; I suggest that you spend your time working on edits that will improve pages that people have a remote chance of looking at.
I am curious about what brought you to that specific page, however. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:45, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I was right then, you reverted just because it looked odd. Keep this up. I don't know what good is it doing? The table is perfectly okay even without that. Harsh Rathod Poke me! 17:40, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

soo

Future FAC request

US Patents are not copyrighted

May 2018 GOCE drive bling

June 2018 GOCE newsletter

Rolling Stones edit

Tech News: 2018-24

June 2018 GOCE Blitz bling

Comment needs copyedit

Donetsk National University of Economics and Trade

Donetsk National University of Economics and Trade

Proposed deletion of Rapid Automatic Cascode Exchange

Template:WikiProjectCard

Just letting you know....

July 2018 GOCE Drive bling

Talkback

August GOCE newsletter

Div col

two {{cite journal}} in a single <ref>

August 2018 GOCE blitz bling

Appreciated

Stumped by italics in certification table

cs1|2 maintenance categories

Your edits to Template:Singles

Cristatusaurus

WPCleaner 2.0

Columbia Bridge (Connecticut River) coords

September 2018 drive bling

Barnstar script works again

Linter, AutoEd and XHTML breaks

Reporting portal bugs

Bell Tower (University of Portland)

San Javier, Murcia

John Morris and Sons Salford

Template problem

Autoed

October 2018 GOCE blitz bling

Irritator source check

Template help

Incorrect English correction.

Infobox school edits

County box

School infobox

Belgian flag

WHYYYY

This edit causes the artist to appear on a separate line

Infobox officeholder

AN/I notice

Answering misplaced edit requests

Template:Infobox person (and associated infoboxes) line break problems

Linter

Infobox settlement

November 2018 GOCE drive bling

For your swan act

December 2018 GOCE newsletter

Enrico Fermi lead

div vs span

Other Romance language listed at Redirects for discussion

Template:Time Persons of the Year

Lint errors - 2018 UK Championship

Bit my tongue

You've got mail

December 2018 blitz bling

You've got mail

Related Articles

Timelines

Top Qs

Fact Checks