Misplaced Pages

John Eliot Gardiner

How is it possible that this article is B-class, yet it is biographical and needs more citations? George8211 08:43, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't know anything about the article. I just fixed a tiny error on the page. I suggest that you take a look at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject_Biography/Assessment#Quality_scale, suggest your own assessment on the Talk page, improve the article, or some combination of the above. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:00, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Mike Pierce

Hi! Can you explain in the simplest form of what my error was toward my edit? I'm not an advanced user, so whatever was done was unintentional and maybe we can correct it to still have the edit up? Thanks! – edit by 80.67.17.247, 03:57, 17 October 2013 (UTC) (time stamp added by Jonesey95 because this user's edit added a bunch of extraneous text to the section above)

It looks like you intended to add a few words, but something that you did caused the first part of each of the web addresses in the references to be removed. If you click View History on that page and compare your version with the one before, you'll get a screen that looks like this. The highlighted text on the left side is what you deleted (inadvertently, no doubt), and the highlights text on the right is what you tried to add. I reverted the whole edit because of the errors it introduced, and because you did not provide a source for your statement.

Strangely, when you tried to edit this Talk page, you introduced errors into the section above the one you added. You can use View History on this page and compare your final version with the version before you started editing.

I don't know what web browser or other software you are using to edit Misplaced Pages pages, but something is going wrong. You might ask for help at the Misplaced Pages:Help desk. Make sure to click the New Section button when posting a question. You can refer them to Jonesey95's Talk page if you want them to see what you're trying to explain. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:06, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Canola - citations

Hi, Jonesey95. I invariably get something wrong with the citations, usually as I normally copy another citation and then replace the elements. Thanks for the touch-up. Where can I find an explanation of what goes where - for example the change that you made from "web" to "encyclopaedia"? Also, sometimes I see the various elements (author, date, url, etc) each in a separate line, other times all in a row - why is that? Is the one a more recent practice to be used in preference to the other? Thanks for your help. Regards, Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 08:18, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Placing the parameters on separate lines is something that some editors do to make things look neat and tidy while editing. It makes no difference in how the Misplaced Pages article looks. The software that displays the page is supposed to compress all "white space" (spaces, tabs, and new lines) into a single space, and it usually does.

I changed "cite web" to "cite encyclopedia" (which still might not be the perfect choice, but it worked) because the citation in question was citing an entry within a larger work, as you do with an encyclopedia. If you want to dig in to some different types of citations and how the parameters work, Help:Citation_Style_1 is a good place to start. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:52, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Jonesey95. A belated thank you. You answered all my 3 questions succintly and productively. Best regards, Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 23:49, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

GOCE September 2013 drive wrap-up

GOCE Blitz wrap-up; join us for the November drive

RE: Billboard Brasil ISSN

Hi. The ISSN number is a fixed identifier of a publication recognized internationally, and that number is the identifier of the Brazilian billboard. I don't have the magazine last month, as I also do not have some other as confer the hot 100 in Brazil in the billboard biz site and to ensure, after i use to borrowing the magazine and confer positions plus some sites for ever include true information because I really like the Brazilian chart and no fake things. bye. Thissz (talk) 03:30, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Thissz, is it possible that you are typing in the bar code (UPC) on the front of the magazine? That is different from an ISSN. ISSN codes are supposed to be only eight numbers. Can you provide a link, a photo, or a scan that shows the code that you are using? I expect that it is on the outside of the magazine or on the masthead. Thanks. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:20, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Editing my changes to the nuclear testing pages

Hello. I read the comment you left with the removal of the italics that I added to the inforbox; I did so because I thought that was the right theing to do, but I repect your greater experience in doing such editing . In the pages I added my table data to late yesterday, I refrained from touching the infobox, and will continue to do so into the future. I will remove the italics operators on the bixes I did earlier as other edits move me to do so, or you are welcome to do so (fancy that - my permission to edit wiki pages!). Thanks for your help. SkoreKeep (talk) 16:13, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're talking about. I believe that you are referring to this edit of Operation Fishbowl. As you can see from the diff, all I did was replace a : with an = in the citation in order to make it work properly. If you are referring to a different edit, please let me know. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:14, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

GOCE

Thanks for the swift response on the talk page. May I also point out that your 546 reviews seems a little ambitious article number wise(!)? Thanks, Matty.007 16:25, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

What, you think I can't copy edit 546 articles in a month? Well, you're probably right. We do have one editor who has done that many in a month (and may do a few hundred this month), but I am not that good. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:52, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

That could be this month's target! Matty.007 18:43, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Deprecated year parameter?

Where was the consensus reached to make this change? I have started a discussion here. The year parameter is widely used and I see no reason to deprecate it. Boghog (talk) 07:19, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

|month= is deprecated, and |year= does not accept days or months, so I used |date= to accommodate both parameters' values. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:38, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for confusion. I now understand that it is the month and not year parameter that is deprecated, although I still don't see why it necessary to deprecate the month parameter. In addition, I believe it is a mistake to concatenate the year and month into a single date parameter since this can easily lead to inconsistently rendered dates and thereby defeat one the primary reasons why citation templates are used in the first place. Rather than concatenate, I think it is better to delete the month entirely and leave the year parameter as is. Finally there are an enormous number of citations in articles that use the month parameter and hence the month parameter will be retained for backwards compatibility for the foreseeable future. Why fix something that isn't broken? Boghog (talk) 18:24, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't know why or when |month= was deprecated from citations.

Regarding deleting the month data entirely: my approach to fixing citation errors has always been to preserve as much of the citation's information as possible. I do delete text when it is clearly redundant or incorrect, but if a previous editor has gone to the trouble of entering a month of publication for a journal article, I see no harm in preserving it and potential harm in removing it.

Regarding inconsistently rendered dates: welcome to Misplaced Pages. Even our Manual of Style section on date formats allows for multiple date formats (although within a single article, dates are supposed to be rendered consistently). – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:36, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

To ask an obvious question, if you don't why |month= was deprecated from citations, why do you find it necessary to remove the parameter? Boghog (talk) 20:17, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

I do not know the reasons behind many of the consensus decisions that have been made on Misplaced Pages, but I respect the process that led to those decisions and assume that everyone documenting those decisions and implementing the results of those decisions is acting in good faith. I prefer to avoid the discussion/argument portions of WP and stick to fixing problems. The community has identified citation problems that are categorized in Category:Articles with incorrect citation syntax; I'm working on fixing those problems. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:51, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Your assumption that consensus has been reached to make this change may be in error. I have asked where the consensus for this change was made and so far no one has supplied me an answer. Before making additional changes, this needs to be discussed further. Boghog (talk) 20:59, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Memory Erasure Template

Yes I did indeed intend to expand the article Memory erasure. I thought that I was working in my sandbox currently and then I was going to expand the article after I was finished adding the information. If this is the incorrect approach to take I would greatly appreciate you helping in taking the correct path. I moved my article out of the Sandbox into what i thought was the correct page to move it too but it appears i added it to Memory Erasure instead of Memory erasure. Youre help would be much appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mbirdsell3 (talk • contribs) 23:54, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

e-mail

I sent an e-mail to you a few days ago. Not sure if you received it though. Let me know. Thanks. —Torchiest _edits 01:25, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

I received it but have been out of town. I am honored and leaning toward saying yes to your proposal, but give me another day or two to think about it please. – Jonesey95 (talk) 06:00, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Torchiest, I will be happy to be nominated as the GOCE lead coordinator. Thanks for thinking of me. I have a couple of ideas for things I'd like to improve, mostly housekeeping/operational items to make sure that we do the things we say we're going to do. Other than that, I figure I'll keep doing the things I've been doing: daily updates during the drives, setting up new drive pages, barnstars for drives and blitzes, and the various other housekeeping tasks that the coords do. I have no grand plans to make big changes; I think the GOCE is a well-run wikiproject that attracts good editors and does good work. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:07, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Great! I'll finish preparing the election page and open it up for nominations this weekend. —Torchiest _edits 14:20, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

ISSN

Hi, what's wrong with this and this ISSN? --Eleassar 22:25, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

See ISSN for an explanation. Valid ISSNs contain eight numeric digits, or seven numeric digits followed by an X. The letters "Y" and "C" are not allowed in ISSNs. I have been fixing ISSNs over the last couple of weeks, and I have been able to find valid ISSNs for the vast majority of periodicals. Where I am unable to find a valid ISSN for something that looks like it might have one, I comment out the ISSN so that the original information is not lost. If you can find a valid ISSN for these publications, please add one. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:19, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

These ISSNs have been copied from reliable sources (COBISS 116333056, ), it seems that the Slovenes are using invalid issn numbers all across... What makes you think then than they're not valid - perhaps the article at Misplaced Pages is incorrect or these are exceptions? --Eleassar 08:35, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Your COBISS link shows a valid ISSN after the first invalid one. I have put that in the article. Your second link shows an invalid ISSN (invalid according to everything I have ever read). I can't explain that, except to say that someone appears to have made a mistake, or perhaps the Slovenes have a different "ISSN" system that does not conform with the international standard. If you can find documentation that shows these Slovene ISSNs to be valid numbers, let me know.

Slovenian publications are not using invalid ISSNs across the board. See this one, for example.

I have fixed ISSNs in a little over 1,000 articles, and I have found a number of cases in which the publication itself lists an invalid ISSN. People make mistakes. I do my best to locate a valid ISSN, even if the publication itself does not know its own ISSN. If I can't find one, I comment out the invalid one and sometimes leave a note. See this diff, for example. I will also sometimes leave a replacement identifier, like an OCLC number, that provides the same service as an ISSN (i.e. a link to Worldcat). – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:50, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Ok, thank you. I don't think there is a separate standard for Slovene sources, so unless the standard changed at some time, these must be mistakes. However, when they're published in databases as ok (like C501-8889), I don't see why we should omit them here: they're still useful in finding the sources. --Eleassar 21:38, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Category:CS1 errors: dates

Hello Jonesey95, yes, I would like help making that error message visible to myself. Jc3s5h mentioned the instructions for adjusting your style sheet so you can see all the error messages, yes, I saw in Category:CS1 errors: dates that I have to update my common or skin CSS stylesheet, but that is non-existent at the moment. Could you help me out? Thank you! Starship.paint (talk) 02:16, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Ugh, sorry to bother. I happened to look at Jc3s5h's user contributions right after I posted it, and I copied his actions to add the script to my User:Starship.paint/common.css. Perhaps could you double-check my script, but it seems to be working for me now. Sorry to bother! Starship.paint (talk) 02:27, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

It looks like you did it right. Do you see the error messages now? Check the References in 10th Air Base Wing. You should see two red errors that look like "Check date values in: |archivedate=, |accessdate=". – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:57, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I see them. Thank you! Starship.paint (talk) 01:43, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

November 2013 GOCE drive wrap-up

Thanks

Thanks for citation fix!

You must use some kind of automation to find so many little errors. Mine was using an obsolete "coauthors" parameter in a citation (it's still included in a Google books citation generator tool). I'm glad to know of the issue and wanted to thank you for your efforts. Agyle (talk) 22:47, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Errors like this one are listed in the subcategories of Category:Articles with incorrect citation syntax. The error messages and category assignments are generated automatically by the module that converts templates like {{cite book}} to citations in a readable format. I have been working since April 2013 to fix errors in many thousands of these articles and templates. Thanks for the note of appreciation.

Can you provide a link to the Google Books citation generator tool? I'd like to look at it to see if I can recommend a way to avoid using the "coauthors" parameter. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:45, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Sinophobia

Thanks for letting me know, that I had mis-interpreted the reference. Bladesmulti (talk) 07:11, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Are you good at copyediting?

If you are, I need help with one article. Let me know, I will be checking your talk page for a while. Bladesmulti (talk) 17:33, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

I think a quick look over Jonesey's talk page will show you that (he has lots of appreciation)... Thanks, Matty.007 17:41, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

I have talk page stalkers? Yikes.

The Guild of Copy Editors' Requests page is a great place to request copyediting help with articles. I do not take individual requests, since I never know when I'll have time to do a good job with an article and do not want to make that commitment. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:36, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! I was unaware about such wiki page. Bladesmulti (talk) 06:58, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

In reply to the TPS thing, I only reply to other people's posts on others' talk pages occasionally... Best, Matty.007 20:25, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

No problem. I was just surprised that anyone was lurking here. I appreciate your answer. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:48, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for the compliment. You have to love these 3 fixes. Each and every one of them. Debresser (talk) 02:15, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

We're down to 49 templates. That is less than half. Debresser (talk) 02:16, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Down to 21. A null-edit to {{Cite conference}} will take care of another one, as will (likely) the deletion nomination of Template:Skeleton novel. And allowing |publisher= and |institution= will also remove one. Allowing ranges for the date parameter will take care of all of the remaining ones. Debresser (talk) 11:02, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Stellar work. I fixed a couple more. Now the only ones left are the ones with date ranges. {{cite conference}} will be cleared by the job queue sometime in the next month or so. It's conceivable that we can get to zero. Exciting. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:31, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:On Misplaced Pages, solutions are mixtures and nothing else

Sorry, I don't dispute that this is an essay, but I'm much confused about why this page refers to chemical solutions when the majority of the advertising corporations put on New Page Patrol refer to what I believe to be business solutions. Because of this, I was led to believe that this was actually some sort of joke. In any case, the {{humor}} tag could apply to essays as it could apply to about anything else; in fact we have the {{humorous essay}} tag for essays specifically. TeleComNasSprVen (talk • contribs) 16:21, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

The essay has one and a half sentences that are attempts at humor. The rest of it is an essay that provides useful guidance on dealing with a slang term that appears in Misplaced Pages articles. I added a sentence to clarify the paragraph with the humor in it. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:48, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

CITEREF

To see CITEREF all you have to do is import a java script. See User:Ucucha/HarvErrors -- PBS (talk) 00:30, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

1000+ templates

Just today the job queue delivered 1000+ templates to the error category that you showed me the catscan report for. Most, I guess over 95%, can be fixed by a bot. Do you know of any bot that can do this and how to divert this bot to those templates? Debresser (talk) 03:00, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

They are almost all cite doi and cite pmid templates. I fixed about 200 of them today and was just planning to crank through them over the next week or so. I have an AutoEd script that merges the month and year parameters into a date parameter, which will take care of about 90% of them. The rest appear to be malformed dates, and there could be a few in there with |coauthors=, but I'm guessing just a tiny handful. Trappist the monk and GoingBatty have access to an AWB script that should be able to fix most of the dates. If they happen to stop by, here's a link to the catscan report. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:43, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

I looked at the ones in Category:CS1 errors: dates and was able to fix almost 50 of the cite doi/pmid templates. The rest have year ranges or multiple dates, which I'll defer to you. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 06:47, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

The couple of pages in the catscan listed that I looked at had |month= and |year= parameters. The AWB script at User:Trappist the monk/CS1 deprecated parameters (AWB) is designed to concatenate |day=/|date= with |month= and |year= into |date=. When I return in a week or so it's my intention to robotize the script. If you're going to be correcting these kinds of errors, using the AWB script would be beneficial to me because you might find bugs in it that I haven't.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 10:50, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Trappist the monk and GoingBatty: Thanks to both of you. Fixing the dates was what I was hoping for. Most of the cite templates in the list have month and year that need to be merged, which the AWB date script does not currently do, but which my AutoEd script does with relative ease. Unfortunately, I do not have the technology required to use AWB, otherwise I'd love to be a part of that work. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:54, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

I have fixed all of these templates. To all a good night! – Jonesey95 (talk) 06:43, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

That is incredible. Do you have any idea when the CS1 module will be updated to allow for date and year ranges? That should remove all remaining instances there. Debresser (talk) 08:48, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

GOCE December 2013 Blitz wrap-up and January Drive invitation

Please comment

Please comment at Template_talk:Medieval_Lands_by_Charles_Cawley#hiding_the_template.27s_output. Debresser (talk) 01:04, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Template protection RFC

Hi,

Based on discussion I was currently having with others, I switched this RFC to the suggested alternate (as previously mentioned in the discussion). Please check it now.

Also, you did not sign your comment

TheOriginalSoni (talk) 20:58, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Elected!

Hi there. You da boss now! I hope you enjoy it as much as I did. Happy New Year! --Stfg (talk) 00:02, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

I know I'm late to the party, but congratulations! I'm sure you'll do well. The Utahraptor/_Contribs 05:31, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you. I appreciate all of your contributions, both past and future. I stand on the shoulders of giants. – Jonesey95 (talk) 06:52, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Happy New Year Jonesey95!

Refs

Please do not shorten the refs like you did here again without clear consensus. Thanks Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 14:27, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

I do not shorten refs like this without clear consensus or arbitrarily. There is clear consensus that citations should be formatted consistently. I made the citation formatting much more consistent (e.g. adding and correcting doi and pmid values, adding titles to citations with raw URLs, adding many links to pmid and other identifiers, and making author name formatting match more consistently from citation to citation) and in the process eliminated many citation errors. Before my edits, the article contained 32 CS1 citation errors. After my edits, the article contained just three CS1 citation errors, each of which was not yet flagged by a red error message (the edit was completed in October; the messages were added to the CS1 module in November).

And now it appears that you have reverted the article to its previous, error-laden state without first asking why the edits that removed those errors were made. I encourage you to undo your revert so that constructive edits made subsequent to October 19 are not lost. I have no objection to your replacing the shortened refs with filled-in refs, but please do not reintroduce dozens of citation errors to articles when editors have worked hard to fix them. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:44, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

WP:GOCE 2014

Congratulations on becoming the new lead! I've been working on the annual report for 2013 here. The bottom section is for you as incoming lead coordinator to fill in with your plans for the upcoming year. You can take a look at the last two years (2012 and 2011) to get an idea of what goes in there, or just say whatever you want. You can also fill in the rest of the details in the other sections if you want. I am working down from the top, so you could start at the bottom and move up. —Torchiest _edits 16:03, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Congratulations! Matty.007 16:09, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

GOCE 2013 Annual Report

Recent edit to Robert Dutton

Hey Jonesey95,

I noticed you recently fixed the unnamed parameter error on Robert Dutton's page. I used a reflink tool to fill in all of the bare urls prone to linkrot and then I received a notification on my talk page saying to fix it, however, I wasn't quite sure how. I tried several times and didn't know what it was asking me to repair. So thank you for fixing up my mistake and I was wondering what you did to fix the error that the tool created, so I could know how to fix it if it happens again in the future. Thanks! Meatsgains (talk) 01:43, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Meatsgains: "%7c" is a substitute for the "|" character (sometimes called a pipe or vertical bar). When a URL containing "|" is included in a Misplaced Pages cite template like {{cite web}}, the template interprets the "|" as "alert: here comes a new template parameter" (e.g. "title" or "author"). So a URL like http://www.foo.bar/foo.php?file=14|name-bar|show-yes, which is perfectly valid, looks like this in a cite web template (note that the end of the URL is cut off and the text at the end of the URL generates errors as well):

http://www.foo.bar/foo.php?file=14. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help); Text "name-bar" ignored (help); Text "show-yes" ignored (help)

If you substitute "%7c" for each "|" in the URL, the cite template sees the whole URL as you intended:

http://www.foo.bar/foo.php?file=14%7cname=bar%7cshow=yes. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)

I left the title parameters out of the above citations so that you could see the difference in the URLs. The "unknown parameter" error is displayed for citations when there is a set of | characters without an equals sign (=) somewhere between them.

And one more slightly confusing thing: If you have a "title" or other non-url parameter with "|" characters in it, like "title=Review: Oscar-nominated movies | The Film Geek Web Site", that also leads to the error above. In that case, you need to substitute | for each "|" character. – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:35, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Please check references for James Bryce, 1st Viscount Bryce and Arnold Lupton

hi there Could you pleaes check referencing for 2 pages James Bryce, 1st viscount Bryce and Arnold Lupton - Cheers and thanks Mike — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.180.74.196 (talk) 11:27, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

I cleaned up a few references in these two articles. Here are some tips for your future editing:

• |last= and |first= are used to indicate the last name and first name of the author, respectively. |title= is for the title of the article, web page, or other work within a larger work. |work= is for the larger work within which the article is contained. See the documentation for {{cite web}} for more information.
• Citations, ideally, should be formatted consistently from one citation to the next. You will find many articles in which this is not the case, but that's the ideal. For example, if all of the existing citations use the date format "12 January 2014", any citations that are added should use the same date format. See WP:CITEVAR for more information.
• When you want to add a note to a Talk page, click the "New Section" link at the top of the page. Enter a brief title for your new section, then add your text in the big text field. When you are done writing, add four tildes (~~~~) to the end of the text. That will sign the text with your user name and the current date and time.
• You might want to sign up for a user name and password so that you can participate more fully. Let me know if you need help with that.

Thank you for contributing to Misplaced Pages. It looks like you are on your way to being a constructive Misplaced Pages editor. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:09, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Works of Henry Chapu

Thanks so much for your intervention and for fixing the links. I will in future follow your template. Thanks again Jonesey95.

Weglinde (talk) 18:54, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Have gone through rest of links. So grateful your help. I will now go through all recent articles to make sure I do links properly. Weglinde (talk) 19:35, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Good work. I fixed a few remaining references where there were line breaks within the references. If you want to be extra careful, click on each of the links in the references to see if they take you to the right location. You may need to delete the period "." at the end of the web address. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:17, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

GOCE January 2014 copy edit drive barnstar

I... I feel I can talk to you about this...

Honestly, Jonesey, am I being an asshole here? User_talk:EEng#Personal_attack.3F_You_decide.21_.5BSection_heading_not_supplied_by_ChrisGualtieri.5B This guy's been on my case for months. Talk:Phineas_Gage#Tags_are_back

BTW, I didn't notice your edit summary the very model of a modern emigrantical until later -- precious! EEng (talk) 04:53, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Since you asked, my opinion: You're both poking and prodding each other and not taking a step back to see if you're here to build an encyclopedia or here for some other reason. My advice to each of you (although only one of you asked) is to take a step back, put away your sword, and read Misplaced Pages:Humor from cover to cover. It's an age-old chestnut on the internet that humor, especially the various varieites of clever, sophisticated wit, is difficult to convey in writing. One man's humor is another man's personal attack.

Apologize, even if you do not think you did anything wrong, and do not use the word "if" in your apology. Take a break from being clever and focus on the content and infrastructure of this great encyclopedia. Find other outlets for your desire to perform verbal gymnastics and make connections among previously unconnected thoughts and objects.

Since you asked, EEng. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:33, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

EEng (talk) 09:01, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Citation bot

Hi,

Just a quick note of thanks for seeking out errors that have resulted from the new bot release. Hope to have time to deal with them soon!

Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 08:15, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Smith609, I appreciate the thanks. I enjoy finding bugs and seeing them fixed, and I find Citation Bot to be a very useful tool. I worry that others will not be so tolerant of its quirks and will want to block it, as they have in the past.

I will keep reporting bugs as I find them. You're doing a great job with the updates. I hope you can find the time and energy to stamp out the last few big bugs. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:02, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

I use any excuse to point to User:EEng#.28thumbs_up.29. EEng (talk) 18:36, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for your help at Chicago Options Associates. Sorry for the rollback, I undid myself, it was just an accidental click. Thanks again, — Cirt (talk) 22:38, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Stalking A930913's talk page

I saw you answering a couple of requests about BracketBot issues on A930913's talk page. Thanks for your help! When you resolve a request so that A930913 doesn't need to take a look, please also edit the {{User:A930913/BBresolved|no}} part and change "no" into "yes". That will not only add the "resolved" box, but also mark the section for extra-speedy archival so they won't clutter the talk page (otherwise these sections are set not to be archived for the next ten years or so). Huon (talk) 02:01, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

I remember to do this sometimes, but since the code is hidden, I forget to remember it. I'll see if I can remember in the future. I wouldn't want those things to lie around for ten years.... – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:23, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

February blitz

GOCE February blitz wrapup

March GOCE copyedit drive

Merging articles

Flushed with success (?) in merging Sea star wasting syndrome into Starfish wasting disease I tackled a more difficult proposition. I merged Gorilla gorilla diehli into Cross River gorilla. That is to say I went through the procedure as outlined in the instructions. I basically copied most of the source article into the recipient and there is bound to be quite a bit of duplication and superfluous information. I see you thought some of the source article was a copyright violation so if you feel like helping out in trimming the merged article into shape you would be welcome. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:22, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Cwmhiraeth. The GGd article was created over a redirect by students in an academic course. The students added useful information, and they were getting a grade for the project, so I didn't want to bite them and the useful information by simply reverting it. Nice work with the merge. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:32, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

citations

Your Autoed edit here seems to be a bit askew, putting a list value to author2. Please consider either splitting each out (author 2, author3...) or even adopting the last2, first2, last3, first3 entry, which would be consistent with the prior use of last1, first1. Cheers, LeadSongDog come howl! 19:39, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

LeadSongDog, thanks for the note. I have been replacing the "coauthors" parameter in citations where it appears without any author parameters at all. In such citations, no author is displayed, which is a problem. If you scroll to the bottom of the edit you cited, you'll see that sort of fix.

In the first citation shown in that edit, I replaced the deprecated "coauthors" parameter with "author2" in order to eliminate a deprecated parameter. The display of the resulting citation was unchanged, and it would remain unchanged if I used author2/author3 or last2/first2 etc., so I didn't take the time to add these not-strictly-necessary parameters to the citation. Another editor is welcome to do so. I prefer to move on to the next article in Category:CS1 errors: coauthors without author and fix citations that are not displaying any authors at all.

I do sometimes take the time to split the authors into individual parameters, but since the resulting rendered citation is usually unchanged (or changed in punctuation and/or name order only), I prefer to focus on citations that are truly broken in ways that interfere with readers' locating of sources. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:10, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. My concern was mainly if this was happening in automated fashion, as these things seem to multiply when one isn't looking too closely. Cheers. LeadSongDog come howl! 22:08, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

LeadSongDog, I inspect every edit before I click Save. If the script wants to make changes that I am not comfortable with, I modify them by hand before saving or abandon the proposed edit without saving. If you look at the end of the alphabet in this category, you will see that articles starting with the letters Q-Z have about 90 articles remaining, out of about 600–700 articles a month or two ago. Those are the articles that were too complex for my script to fix easily. I will return to them after I have cleared out the easy articles from the category.

You can see my AutoEd scripts here. The "month" script is the one that I am using for these edits. I know the name of the script doesn't really make sense.... – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:03, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Looks like a good way to cut the job down to size. Thanks for explaining. LeadSongDog come howl! 23:27, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

When |coauthors= contains the names of two or more authors, please don't simply rename |coauthors= to |author= as you did here, here and here - it corrupts the metadata. Instead, split it out into separate |author1=, |author2= etc., like this. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:22, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

See paragraphs above in response to OP. I have been replacing the "coauthors" parameter in citations where it appears without any author parameters at all. In such citations, no author at all is displayed to a WP reader, let alone in the metadata, which is a problem. I have no intention of doing similar edits to the larger Category:Pages containing cite templates with deprecated parameters, since I recognize that doing so would leave the display unchanged and add metadata problems.

There are zillions of citations with multiple authors in |author= or |authors= already, so I'm not significantly contributing to the size of that problem with a few hundred fixes of authors that are not displayed at all in WP or in metadata. There are also editors who will fight tooth and nail against changing that situation, unfortunately. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:15, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Data stored in "author" or "authors" parameters is definitely rendered in the displayed citations. It is also displayed in metadata, all though multiple authors are displayed as if they were one author. Storing multiple authors in the "author" or "authors" parameters is not the problem. The problem is that Module:Citation/CS1 does not parse these parameters to produce proper metadata and the CS1 module could easily be modified to do so. We are talking about adding a few lines of code in one template to eliminate the clutter of "first1, last1, first2, last2, ..." parameters in zillions of articles. Finally how many consumers of Misplaced Pages citation metadata are there? I suspect not very many. Boghog (talk) 15:50, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

I am skeptical about this "a few lines of code in one template" assertion but willing to be persuaded. How would a few lines of code be able to automatically differentiate between the following, all of which I am sure exist in the wild in WP:

• author=Doe JJ, Smith KT, Brown MR
• author=Doe, JJ, Smith, KT, Brown, MR
• author=JJ Doe, KT Smith, MR Brown
• author=Doe, John, Smith, Kate, Brown, Michael
• author=John Doe, Jr., Kate Smith, Ph.D., Michael Brown, M.D.

And that's just Western names. I haven't delved into naming from non-Western cultures, some of which follow different rules about which part of a name goes where.

Please do not suggest that editors will read the style guides and documentation and provide punctuation that follows the style guides. We have many thousands of citations that provide evidence to the contrary, with more popping up every day. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:44, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Some editors create citations templates by hand, but many use template filling tools that generate a consistent citation style. It should be possible to identify and parse well-speced author formats that are created by template filling tools (or manually by authors who do read style guidelines) and mark the rest as errors. One example is the Diberri Misplaced Pages template filling tool. The use of Diberri's tool is mentioned (but not required) in MEDMOS and MCBMOS. Hence this citation format is very commonly used in Misplaced Pages biomedical and scientific articles. This format is very well defined:

* Patrias K, Wendling P (2007–13). "Author for Journal Articles". The NLM Style Guide for Authors, Editors, and Publishers. Bethesda (MD): National Library of Medicine (US). {{cite book}}: External link in |chapterurl= (help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl= ignored (|chapter-url= suggested) (help)

In particular, this is a comma delimited citation format. Commas are only used between authors and never within one author. Furthermore semicolons are never used. Hence it is very easy to identify this type of author format with a regular expression and it is very easy to parse. It should also be possible to identify and parse other well-speced citation formats. Author lists that are not formatted using an accepted standard should be marked as errors, similar to the way the "date" parameter is error checked (e.g., "July 2010" is OK and "2010 July" is not OK). Boghog (talk) 21:56, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

But once the citation exists, how do you tell the difference between these two citations, one of which was created by the Diberri tool and one which was not? There is no flag to say "this is a multi-author comma-delimited author parameter".

• Patrias K, Wendling P (2007). "Author for Journal Articles". The NLM Style Guide for Authors, Editors, and Publishers. Bethesda (MD): National Library of Medicine (US). {{cite book}}: External link in |chapterurl= (help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl= ignored (|chapter-url= suggested) (help)
• Patrias K, Jr., Wendling P, M.D. (2007). "Author for Journal Articles". The NLM Style Guide for Authors, Editors, and Publishers. Bethesda (MD): National Library of Medicine (US). {{cite book}}: External link in |chapterurl= (help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl= ignored (|chapter-url= suggested) (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

Text in |author= is separated by commas, but how does the error-detection code know what is an error and what is not? I think it can't, but I would love to be wrong. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:14, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

According to the documentation, periods are never used except an optional single period at the end. Also according to the NLM documentation, "Vincent T. DeVita, Jr." becomes "DeVita VT Jr", Hence in the example above, "Patrias K, Jr." is an easily detectable error (a third author whose last name is "Jr" and no first name). In addition, the documentation reads "Omit degrees, titles, and honors that follow a personal name, such as M.D." Hence "Patrias K, Jr., Wendling P, M.D." contains two extra periods that should not be there. The code could also scan the text for common degrees (M.D., Ph.D., etc.) and if present, throw an error. There may be a few errors that might sneak through (nothing is perfect), but a large majority of errors should be caught. Boghog (talk) 22:44, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

As I said, I am skeptical, but I look forward to seeing a demonstration of such code in action. Here are just a few examples of |author= from a single article, Nuclear and radiation accidents:

• author=Johnston, Robert (one author, one comma)
• author=James C. Oskins, Michael H. Maggelet (two authors, one comma)
• author=Ricks, Robert C. et al. (one author and "et al.", one comma)
• author=István Turai and Katalin Veress (two authors, no comma, "and")
• author=Ball, Roberts, Simpson, et al (three authors, "et al.", three commas)
• author=Jacobson, Mark Z. and Delucchi, Mark A. (two authors, two commas, "and")

I know that they are not internally consistent as they should be within the same article, but that is the real world of WP. If they came from different articles, most or all would be acceptable based on CITEVAR, I expect. I find it hard to imagine code that could render all of those citations correctly based on detection of commas. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:22, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Many of the same ambiguities can also occur with "author1, author2, ..." or even "first1, last1, first2, last2, ...". To remove all ambiguities, we would need to add several additional parameters such as "author-title1" and "middle1" (middle name). And as you have pointed out above, there are zillions of articles that already use a single parameter named "author" to store full author lists. A large fraction of these do conform to the NLM author standard. Furthermore the use of a single author parameter has not be deprecated. If it were deprecated (a proposal that I strongly would oppose), a bot would need to go through these articles and convert all the above examples with a similar parser and make similar mistakes. Perhaps the best long term solution is to have a bot replace all the {{cite journal}} templates that do conform to NLM author standard to the {{vcite2 journal}} template (that in turn calls Module:Citation/CS1). Code could be added to {{vcite2 journal}} so that it would parse the author parameter and create "first1, last1, first2, last2, ..." parameters that are passed on to Module:Citation/CS1 making everyone happy. The are a number of potential problems with this however. For example, the maintainer of User:Citation bot had declined to support {{vcite}} templates in the past and therefore it is questionable if he would support {{vcite2 journal}} in the future. Boghog (talk) 13:30, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

There are an endless number of potential exceptions and no filter would be able to catch 100% of these, but it is also important not to loose sight that a large majority could properly be identified as not conforming to the NLM standard and marked as errors. Applying the NLM author standard to your last set of examples above:

• author=Johnston, Robert (one author, one comma) – a literal interpretation is two authors neither with a first initial, therefore does not conform to the NLM standard
• author=James C. Oskins, Michael H. Maggelet (two authors, one comma) – periods should not be there, therefore does not conform; ignoring the periods, the literal interpretation is that we have two first/middle initials "Oskins" and "Maggelet" that do not conform since each has more than two characters and the second character is lower case.
• author=Ricks, Robert C. et al. (one author and "et al.", one comma) – periods should not be there, therefore does not conform. Note: it is fairly common to have "et al." at the end of a author string so this should be immediately stripped from the string before further processing
• author=István Turai and Katalin Veress (two authors, no comma, "and") – "and" occurs frequently enough that it probably should be converted into a comma before parsing so that this string becomes "István Turai, Katalin Veress". After the conversion we are left with two authors however the literal interpretation is that we have two authors with first/middle initials of Turai and Veress that do not conform since each has more than two characters and the second character is lower case.
• author=Ball, Roberts, Simpson, et al (three authors, "et al.", three commas) – after stripping "et al" we are left with three authors none of which has a first initial, therefore does not conform
• author=Jacobson, Mark Z. and Delucchi, Mark A. (two authors, two commas, "and") – a period that should not be there, hence does not conform; also after converting the "and" to a comma (Jacobson, Mark Z, Delucchi, Mark A), we are left with two authors (Jacobson and Delucchi) without first initials, hence does not conform. Boghog (talk) 21:37, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Above, you said "Module:Citation/CS1 does not parse these parameters to produce proper metadata and the CS1 module could easily be modified to do so." I have, with an open mind, asked for an example of how the module could be modified to do what you propose. Now you are saying that the module should be modified to flag citations as nonconformant with NLM, which not all CS1 citations are required to follow. I'm perceiving a drift in your argument, one that ends in a place that appears to conflict with CITEVAR. Please correct me if I misinterpret your words.

What concrete change would you like to make to the module? I am fine with changing the module if it can be done in a way that is concrete and can apply to all citations that make use of the module.

I suggest that this discussion be moved to Module_talk:Citation/CS1 if you have a specific recommendation for a way to change the module that would apply to all existing CS1 citations that use the module. The change would also need to respect CITEVAR, I believe. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:07, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

There has been no drift what so ever in my proposal. I question the need for metadata in the first place since I suspect there are not very many consumers of this data. However if one wants to generate proper metadata, then one must enforce some standards on how the author data is stored. This is exactly the same situation that we have the date parameter. In order to produce proper author metadata, it must first pass a filter to make sure that it can be parsed. Author data that does not pass the filter should not be parsed and the raw author data should instead be used directly to produce the metadata as it currently does. Marking non-conforming data as an error is not my preference. I am only responding to others that think metadata is important. Marking the data as an error does not violate CITEVAR, but subsequent edits to remove those errors so that 100% accurate metadata can be generated may be a violation. My proposal would preserve the current storage format and display of authors and is completely consistent with CITEVAR. Deprecating the single "author" parameter to store multiple authors is not consistent with CITEVAR. Boghog (talk) 07:12, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Tree

Jonesey, people complain about Christmas tree, section decorations. Something for you? Hafspajen (talk) 17:56, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Hafspajen, what and where are these complaints? Can I see them on a Talk page so that I know what to address and how to address it? I'll be happy to take a look if there is a specific need for improvement. Thanks. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:25, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

• Well, the section Setting up and taking down is tagged = This section may be confusing or unclear to readers and Decoration has been tagged, This section may need to be rewritten entirely to comply with Misplaced Pages's quality standards - and it might be a little difficult to clean up for me. Copy editing and clean up is needed, possibly grammar problems and confusing formulations. Hafspajen (talk) 21:41, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Hafspajen, I've looked at these pages a couple of times, and I don't see an easy way to provide a quick copy edit that would fix the section. It does indeed need a complete rewrite/rebalance and a comparison to the main article linked from that section. That's not something I'm willing to do at this time. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:00, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Oh, well, no problem. Hafspajen (talk) 04:09, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Essay wp:Autofixing_cites

User:Wikid77 here. I have written more Lua script to autofix (auto-correct) typos when using the wp:CS1 cite templates. When I helped to develop those Lua-based cite templates, during October 2012 to April 2013, the intent was to auto-correct for many typos, not show numerous error messages, and I never imagined Lua would be used to issue thousands of red-error messages when simple auto-correction would have been quite easy. Well, after waiting all year, I have returned to re-focus on autofixing typos in cite templates, and suppress most of the red-error messages. Across Misplaced Pages editing, many editors are just too busy to nitpick the details and so, autofixing of cite parameters provides a rapid way to solve the problems and make many cite templates almost trivial to use. Last year, I estimated the hand-correction of cites to require over 3 years of manual, hand-crafted edits, and now after another whole year, the backlog is still about 3-5 years if hand-fixed. Although several users are diligently hand-editing the pages to fix cites, many other users are actively inserting invalid cite parameters into almost as many dozens of pages each week. The past year (of tedious cite work) has proven how autofixing is the only hope to rapidly correct the 10,000 pages in the backlog categories. For example:

• Category:Pages_with_citations_using_unsupported_parameters (pages: 0)

During early 2014, the unsupported parameters have been fixed at only 100-200 pages per month, as meaning more years of backlog work. I wrote new essay, "wp:Autofixing cites" to explain some simple ways to autofix the major cite parameters and hope people might discuss issues about the autofixing in the talk-page there, "WT:Autofixing cites" where all the complex tactics of fixing URLs and dates could be discussed, in more detail. -Wikid77 (talk) 22:02, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for laying this out. I will respond at the Talk page for the essay. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:45, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Wow

Thanks for correcting my typos. What's really pathetic is that I made the same error twice! :p Must have some funny idiosyncrasy when it comes to typing the work "public", or autocorrect did something wonky. Needless to say, THANK YOU! --Another Believer _(Talk) 16:50, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

I thought you'd like that. I've always thought that "pubic" should be underlined in red by any respectable automated spell-checker. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:43, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

… I really don't wish to see a list of pubic art. --Another Believer _(Talk) 23:08, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Rakesh Biswas page

The matter provided for Mr Rakesh Biswas is genuine and have reference material .Mr Biswas is a famous personality of india , as he is youth icon for us . so kindly due to his respect make his page correct for his followers and researchers. thnks - unsigned addition by 106.219.56.63, 19:10, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

All I did was get the page moved from Category space to article space. You should post your concerns at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Rakesh Biswas. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:22, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Repost of The Yellow Wallpaper (film)

Is there something wrong in a typo or something on this page? It says on your profile you mostly delete for typos, but not sure where the typo is. The page fits every guideline for Misplaced Pages article, and the article is not the same as the original article, but has been amended. Do you know how to fix what is wrong? You are suggesting speedy deletion, but not sure why. Thanks! Atafirst (talk) 03:10, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

All I did was fix a syntax error in one of the citations. I did not suggest speedy deletion. As you can see in the article's history, that deletion tag was placed by Wikipedical. The previous discussion is at Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/The_Yellow_Wallpaper_(film). You did the right thing by clicking the "Contest this deletion" button and posting on the Talk page. An editor should respond to you there with an explanation of why the article is proposed for deletion.

Thank you for contributing to Misplaced Pages. I know it can sometimes be difficult to learn how things are done around here. You might consider copying the article's contents to Draft:The Yellow Wallpaper (film), where you can work on article drafts that are not ready to be in the main article space yet. – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:28, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I know coauthors field throws an error message, but . . .

... the coauthors field is a feature, not a bug, when it is used to list the contributors of chapters to a volume edited by editors who are already listed in editor fields. It is an error worse than leaving in a no-op coauthors fields (yeah, I know that that field doesn't display by default) when a book is listed that already has its editors named, as the editors will display in the correct manner for a bibliographic entry in that case. I'm sure you are just trying to help here, and I really need to talk to someone else about the changes in the CS1 parameters, but who? The changes in the CS1 parameters, deprecating parameters that were used correctly by editors like me who read the fine documentation, are wasting your time and mine, and resulting in a whole bunch of changes that are very difficult to roll back to correct. Where is the discussion among editors about which parameters are deprecated, and why? Thanks for your help, and best wishes for much enjoyment and appreciation of your editing. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 00:33, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

As the citation was written, the authors of the book in question were displayed only in the wikitext, not in the article. How does that hidden information help readers locate the book in question or learn who the authors of the chapters in the book were? I believe that readers should not be expected to view the wikitext in the hope that some hidden information will be there to help them.

In any event, I have commented out |coauthors= in Jim Flynn (academic), which maintains your desire (as I perceive it) to have the hidden author information in the wikitext and my desire to eliminate red error messages from articles. I compared the display of the page before my first edit and after commenting out |coauthors=, and it appears to display that citation in exactly the same way. I hope that works for you.

I'm curious about the documentation to which you refer. Can you point me to documentation that shows, or showed, how to use |coauthors= in this way? I am legitimately asking, not trying to needle you. I have found that documentation on WP can be inconsistent from location to location, which can be frustrating to editors.

Most of the discussion about CS1 citations happens at Help talk:Citation Style 1, with some additional technical discussion at Module talk:Citation/CS1. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:01, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) If it is desired to include the names of all authors in the wikitext, but to display just a few, the approved method is by means of the |display-authors= parameter. This does require that |coauthors= not be used, each author being specified separately - either as |last1=|first1= etc. or as |author1= etc. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:37, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Now fixed in the approved manner by converting |coauthors= to |lastn= |firstn= format with |display-authors=0 for good measure. -- 79.67.241.76 (talk) 17:31, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

... and now it is changed again. -- 79.67.241.76 (talk) 22:06, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

... and another page. -- 79.67.241.76 (talk) 23:32, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

... and yet another page. -- 79.67.241.76 (talk) 07:48, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Fixing coauthors in general

Hi Jonesey. I feel really bad saying this stuff. I know you are trying to help. When I was going through Category:CS1 errors: coauthors without author, I generally employed a method such that when I erred, it would keep the error message in. Also, the ones that I didn't touch were generally the ones that I couldn't even figure out what to do quickly. And had already gone through alphabetically up to "H" I believe, so a lot of what was in the category up to there were weird cases. So I think you ended up creating a lot of problems with your method: E.g., all the Fishbase cites like , those are the editors, not the authors. Or a funny one like this: . Coauthor named Med Vet? Those are actually part of the sole author's title as a Doctor of Veterinary Medicine! Anyway, maybe we can think of a way to go back through these efficiently and check for issues like that? For the random selection of a run of 17 edits in the "D"s that I looked at that, 9 of them had problems --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 20:56, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Don't feel bad. I make mistakes just like anyone. Feel free to fix any mistakes that I have made. I never take it personally. This issue, however, is a case of Garbage In, Garbage Out. I saw a lot of crazy stuff in that category as I fixed about 2,100 articles with this error. The 90 or so articles that are left were the ones that were too complicated to fix quickly with a single script; I expect to get to those in the next few days. As for the citations where editors are now listed in the author field, or multiple parts of an author's name are listed in parameters for multiple authors, welcome to Misplaced Pages. It's ugly out there.

Please see the first four or five paragraphs of the "citations" section above on this Talk page for more details behind my reasoning.

Thank you for your comments and for your contributions to fixing these error categories. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:17, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

Thanks, JustBerry! – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:19, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

GOCE March 2014 barnstar

A barnstar for you!