Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 12:51, 13 September 2016

Archives

2009–2012 · 2013 · 2014 · 2015 · 2016

This page has archives. Sections older than 100 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 10 sections are present.

Need extra help with ISBNs

• Ancient Greek art
• Arctic exploration
• BTR-152
• Bukosh (Vushtrri)
• Caprodon
• Gwyneth Cravens
• Patrick Moraz
• Riley 16
• VSKhSON
• Weapons of the Lebanese Civil War

A backlog is formulated and I far behind my schedule. Need reinforcements. -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:02, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

I fixed one or two easy ones. The rest will require some research. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:45, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

I fixed a pile of errors from Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Check Misplaced Pages/ISBN errors, including some of the above. More later, maybe. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:43, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

 Done It took a few days a few editors, but these are all fixed. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:47, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Philadelphia Phillies

Thanks for reverting my țypo-y edit. Those v's... Ugh!

As for the spaces, though, they were intentional. When you're editing on a smartphone, as I frequently am, the compact format produced by "cite..." templates creates long unbroken strings of several parameters smashed together, with line breaks only when arbitrarily forced by the page width, ending in a single word plus most of a blank line, and then the next such string. I see something like this simulation (assuming you're reading this on a normal screen):

 The [[Major League Baseball 
 rivalries|rivalry]] between the [[New York 
 Mets]] and the Phillies was said to be among
 the "hottest" rivalries in the [[National
 League]].<ref>{{cite
 web|url=http://www.nydailynews.com/sports
 /baseball/mets/2008/04/11
 /2008-04-11_metsphillies_rivalry_looking_like
 _what_m-2.html|title=Mets-Phillies rivalry
 looking like what Mets-Braves used to be
 |last=Bondy|first=Filip|date=April 11,
 2008|work=New York Daily
 News|accessdate=June 15, 2009}}</ref>
 <ref>{{cite book|url=http://books.google.com
 /?id=K_e8KWxmo_kC&pg=PA10&dq=Mets-
 Phillies+rivalry#v=onepage&q&f=false
 |title=Philadelphia Phillies Past &
 Present|page=10|first=Rich|last=Westcott|pub
 lisher=MVP
 Books|year=2010|accessdate=July 15,
 2011|isbn=9781610600989}}</ref> The two
 ] divisional rivals have
 met each other recently in playoff, division,
 and [[Major League Baseball wild card|wild
 card]] races. Aside from several brawls in the
 1980s, the  rivalry remained low-key before
 the 2006  season,<ref>{{cite 
 news|url=http://www.nydailynews.com
 /archives/sports/2006/05 
 /24/2006-05-24_despite_long_game__rivalry_
 l.html|title=Despite long game, rivalry long 
 way off|last=Bondy|first=Filip|date=May 24, 
 2006|work=New York Daily 
 News|accessdate=January 11,  
 2010|deadurl=yes|archiveurl=http://web.archiv
 e.org/web/20120113062511/http: 
 //www.nydailynews.com/archives/sports
 /2006/05
 /24/2006-05-24_despite_long_game__rivalry/
 l.html|archivedate=January 13, 2012}}</ref>
 as the teams had seldom been equally good
 at the same time.

You can see how difficult editing that would be -- was! -- till I added spaces after most of the parameter bars and a couple of equal signs. --Thnidu (talk) 15:25, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Yep, that looks nasty. I see people put spaces into templates occasionally, and I imagine that they have their reasons. Your reason looks good to me.

I tried to revert only your erroneous edit. Usually I just fix typos like yours, but I will revert if it looks like someone is using a script or other automated editing that may have a programming error in it, so that the editor receives a notification to alert them to their malformed code. I always like to know when I've made a mistake with a script so that I can fix the code. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:50, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

June 2016 Guild of Copy Editors Newsletter

Guild of Copy Editors June 2016 News Hello everyone, welcome to the June 2016 GOCE newsletter. It's been a few months since we sent one out; we hope y'all haven't forgotten about the Guild! Your coordinators have been busy behind the scenes as usual, though real life has a habit of reducing our personal wiki-time. The May backlog reduction drive, the usual coordinating tasks and preparations for the June election are keeping us on our toes! May drive: Thanks to everyone who participated in last month's record-setting backlog reduction drive. Of the 29 people who signed up, 16 copyedited at least one article, 197 copyedits were recorded on the drive page, and the copyedit backlog fell below 1,500 for the first time! Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here. June Blitz: this one-week copy-editing blitz will occur from 12 June through 18 June; the themes will be video games and Asian geography. Coordinator elections: It's election time again; how quickly they seem to roll around! Nominations for the next tranche of Guild coordinators, who will serve a six-month term that begins at 00:01 UTC on 1 July and ends at 23:59 UTC on 31 December, opens at 00:01 UTC on 1 June and closes at 23:59 UTC on 15 June. Voting takes place between 00:01 UTC on 16 June and 23:59 UTC on 30 June. If you'd like to assist behind the scenes, please consider stepping forward; self-nominations are welcomed and encouraged. All Misplaced Pages editors in good standing are eligible; remember it's your Guild, and it doesn't run itself! 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 and Baffle gab1978. To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:01, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Question

Hi, Jonesey95 -- I just saw your question on the GOCE elections page. I've been a bit busy in the last few days. It's late here, and I will respond tomorrow when I'm more awake and rested.  – Corinne (talk) 04:27, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Always a good idea to delay a thoughtful response until you are rested. I have done too many poor edits while up in the wee hours. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:35, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Tumsar

Hey, Jonesey95. I was copyediting the Tumsar article and noticed that the article had been copied and pasted entirely from this site. I don't think I should continue copyediting it, and I'm really not in the mood to rewrite the article, given that I can't even find sources. What do I do? Thanks, MediaKill13 (talk) 10:42, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

I have marked that section as a copyright violation. Keep going with the copy edit, removing and tagging unsourced text as you see fit. I would remove anything that seems promotional or biased. I tend to leave things like lists of schools, since they don't do much harm, tagging such things with {{unreferenced section}} or similar templates. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:46, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

I've tried to copyedit the article, I really have. But I don't understand a thing and I don't know whether some of the writing is mistaken or correct as it is. I think I'll just take this article off my working list. Sorry for holding it up. MediaKill13 (talk) 14:36, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Errant "action=edit" links in WP articles

Bgwhite and Magioladitis, I have stumbled across a couple hundred articles that have links to edit WP articles (and other erroneous text) in their prose. Search for "action=edit" in article space to see them. Not all of them are errors, but it looks like at least 90% are. I do not have access to a computer that can run AWB, so I don't have an easy way to fix these. Are you interested? – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:04, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Super nice catch. We should already be finding these via errors 90/91. It turns you just opened a new world for us all :) -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:40, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

@Magioladitis: <deadpan> Yea. I'm so excited. More articles to fix. Yea.</deadpan> We are catching anything with wikipedia.org/, but not with wikipedia.org/w/ I've added it to the code and it now catches Twydall. Let's see how much misery it brings on the next run. Bgwhite (talk) 23:40, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

@Magioladitis: There are 131 articles in today's run for #90, compared to the normal ~30. The list is ready for anybody to help out. Bgwhite (talk) 04:53, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

We need the help of @Frietjes: too. -- Magioladitis (talk) 07:39, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

June blitz

		The Minor Barnstar
		This barnstar is awarded to Jonesey95 for copy edits totaling between 1 and 1,999 words (including bonus and rollover words) during the GOCE June 2016 Copy Editing Blitz. Congratulations, and thank you for your contributions! Miniapolis 13:45, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

July drive editnotice

Hi, Jonesey. I've created the July drive page, but can't get to the editnotice in the create-your-article-list window to change the rollover-words link from March to May. Please teach me to fish and all the best, Miniapolis 14:33, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Fishing instructions:

1. Go to the monthly list of Coordinator tasks.
2. Those instructions lead you to Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Intro, which is where you change March to May.

Happy fishing! – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:35, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for updating the drive instructions since I last checked them; that page name is nice and easy to remember. Miniapolis 22:35, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors July 2016 News

Guild of Copy Editors July 2016 News Hello everyone, and welcome to the July 2016 GOCE newsletter. June Blitz: this one-week copy-editing blitz ran from 12 through 18 June; the themes were video games and Asian geography. Of the 18 editors who signed up, 11 removed 47 articles from the backlog. Barnstars and rollover totals are located here. Thanks to all editors who took part. Coordinator elections: The second tranche of Guild coordinators for 2016, who will serve a six-month term until 23:59 UTC on 31 December, have been elected. Jonesey95 remains as your drama-free Lead Coordinator, and Corinne and Tdslk are your new assistant coordinators. For her long service to the Guild, Miniapolis has been enrolled in the GOCE Hall of Fame. Thanks to everyone who voted in the election; our next scheduled one occurs in December 2016. All Misplaced Pages editors in good standing are eligible; self-nominations are welcome and encouraged. July Drive: Our month-long July Copy Editing Backlog Elimination Drive is now underway. Our aim is to remove articles tagged for copy-edit in April, May and June 2015, and to complete all requests on the GOCE Requests page from June 2016. The drive ends at 23:59 on 31 July 2016 (UTC). 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, Corinne and Tdlsk. >>> Sign up for the July Drive! <<<

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:54, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Indo-Bangladesh joint production

He you cannot delete Indo-Bangladesh joint production.The page contains all kinds of truth and right information.I dont see any fault in this page and also not a single unsource material.I think you can upgrade this page by giving duty to collect information & edit the page.But everything depends on you, I am just suggesting you. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Msd2609 (talk • contribs) 08:48, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Msd2609, the article has no sources. All Misplaced Pages articles need references to reliable sources. See Misplaced Pages:Verifiability for more information. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:17, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Ensign N176

Hi, I spotted your PROD on the above. I'm not sure whether you're a regular editor of F1 articles? If so you are probably already aware of the long-term problems the F1 project has with the creator of this article. He has no concept of notability and constantly creates articles for cars which don't deserve them (in addition, they are habitually badly written and often copy-vio). Our usual procedure is to re-direct to the team page and place some carefully worded advice at the redirect that it should not be re-created. For example, see re-direct for RAM 02. This car was 'missed' when a number of re-directs were created recently (as were the Ensign N174 and N181). There is also an ANI discussion in progress about the editor. On another note I think it was you who told me how to get 'Ajax Preview' onto the editing box. Still grateful for that! Regards, Eagleash (talk) 09:22, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)(It was you: just found it your archives, December 2014). Eagleash (talk) 09:26, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Eagleash, feel free to redirect Ensign N176 (and Ensign N179 as well, if appropriate). I do not edit vehicle articles of any sort regularly; I came to it because of the copy editing tag and found that it wasn't ready for copy-editing. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:30, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, there's still a lot of articles which need to be considered for re-direction. It's a bit of an automatic reaction to tag his stuff for copy-edit as the pages are always so ungrammatical. (Commas to end sentences and capitalisation of car parts are regular things). I won't re-direct this one just yet as I'm interested to see his reaction to the PROD. His usual response is to just delete anything he doesn't like (or understand). Eagleash (talk) 10:34, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Coat rack tag deleted twice and I know he can remove the PROD if he so desires but I'm not sure what he thinks he's done here. Eagleash (talk) 16:29, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Time for AfD with a recommendation to redirect, then. I will let you do the honors. I have removed the coatrack content. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:17, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

I have removed irrelevant content from the remaining Ensign vehicle articles, leaving them as stubs. We'll see what happens. Feel free to discuss them among your F1 project compatriots. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:31, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) There is already a loose consensus at the Wiki F1 Proj. to re-dir his stuff. (It's all like this one). So after only the briefest of discussions with one or two of my colleagues, I will re-direct as we have done in the past. The proj. also have it mind to try to establish some criteria for notability. It's a bit tricky because cars often last only one season or less and even if quite important in the history of F1, very often all we have to work with are the race results. Not always though, some do get individual coverage in the specialist mags. Anyways your input on this one is greatly appreciated by the Proj. believe me. On one last point, I think the results table should have been retained as it does relate solely to the N176 and it is F1 proj. convention to always include one. Academic now though. Regards, Eagleash (talk) 17:34, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

If the article is redirected, the results table can move to the team page as well. I have no problem with a sourced results table living somewhere. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:51, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

The team page will already have a table incorporating all the team's results... which is not necessarily the same as the results for the individual cars due to 'privateer' entries. Just wanted to mention for future reference (as if) that all F1 car articles (notability notwithstanding) have results tables by convention. Regards, Eagleash (talk) 18:23, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

He's restored the N174 page...including the spelling errors... let the edit-warring begin. Eagleash (talk) 18:25, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

No edit warring for me. I put a note on the talk page and reverted with an edit summary. I also placed a note on the editor's talk page. I suggest that you do the same, even if it seems like overkill and a lot of work, to show good faith when this issue is brought to a wider forum. It gives the misbehaving editor many chances to make good choices. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:24, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Notes on TPs are ignored or deleted (sometimes telling the writer to F off). He has had a year to learn to make good choices. The Proj. lost patience with him long ago as he takes no notice of any advice or requests and has no idea about any guidelines whatsoever. Eagleash (talk) 07:42, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

I did leave a note on the TP but he's back as an IP restoring pages for N174 & N181. I've undone both of those. I've redirected the N176 already and I or someone will get around to the others pretty soon. Eagleash (talk) 16:59, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for commenting at the ANI. The problem has been needing someone from outside the project to add their weight to the discussions. IP/Rowde is probably gone for today now as it's past 8PM (UK) and that's usually the last we see of him. Eagleash (talk) 20:25, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Last name or first name?

Hey Jonesey, sorry to bother you about this, but I couldn't find an MOS page for this issue. When writing about a person, is there a specific name (first or last) I'm supposed to use? Example: The Phil Urich article. Should it be Urich next appears... or Phil next appears... or either? Hope this is understandable. Thanks, MediaKill13 (talk) 11:08, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Last name, generally. See MOS:LASTNAME. Exceptions happen, though, especially if you are talking about multiple people with the same last name in the same paragraph. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:23, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Please don't copy material from elsewhere online

Not even temporarily for editing, like you did at Draft:Nell Jackson. Please do such work before you hit save, or use an external editor. Thanks. — Diannaa (talk) 03:04, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Hmm. That's a pain. I marked it as needing paraphrasing, and I have been working on it in Draft space. Of course I would not place copyrighted material in mainspace.

You deleted text that I had already partially modified, including wikilinks and named citations that you have deleted and broken. Please restore the parts that are my own work. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:06, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Copyright materials should not be posted anywhere on this wiki, not in draft space, not anywhere. I have restored the citations. I am sending you a copy of the removed material via email so that you can continue to work on it. — Diannaa (talk) 18:01, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Received, and noted. Thanks for explaining that so nicely. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:40, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for receiving this news in good spirits. — Diannaa (talk) 02:22, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Archiving

Hello, Jonesey95 -- I have noticed that articles whose copy-edits have been completed have not been getting archived as quickly as before, yet I see that you are currently active. I'm wondering if you are waiting for either me or Tdslk to do the archiving. If so, I'd be glad to do it, but I'm not sure exactly what I'm supposed to do. If you haven't been waiting for us to do this, but have just been busy, I'm sorry.  – Corinne (talk) 04:41, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Miniapolis typically does the archiving (mostly because nobody else does it regularly), but any editor, especially any coordinator, is welcome to do so. To archive a request, edit the Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests/Archives/2016 page, scroll to the bottom, and add a new row to the table by copying the format of the last row in the table. Change the request information (article name, requested date, completed date, requester, copy editor, and any planned nomination), preview your changes, and save. Then remove the requested article's section from the requests page, with an edit summary of "archiving Article Name" or something similar. Does that make sense? – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:03, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, thank you.  – Corinne (talk) 14:17, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Archiving 2

Hello, Jonesey95 -- I have just archived two completed copy-edits at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests/Archives/2016. I have two different questions:

1) On the first one, Vasilije Ojdanić, there was some discussion, so I decided to move the discussion to the Requests talk page. I just copied the entire thing and pasted it, with an introductory note. However, I wasn't sure whether there was anything I could leave out when I pasted it. You'll notice that Two-fingered Typist pinged the requester toward the end, so the "discussion" could be said to be in two parts, and I didn't want to leave any of it out. What do you recommend as far as omitting anything when moving a discussion to the talk page?

2) On the second one, USS Tucker (DD-374), the requester wrote in the original request "Expect to nominate for GA". So, technically, it is not a good article nominee yet, so I didn't know whether I could write "GAN" in the last line when I archived it. I decided put put "GAN", but if you think it shouldn't be there, I'll be glad to remove it.  – Corinne (talk) 16:25, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

1) You did the right thing by including the whole discussion. See Misplaced Pages:Copying within Misplaced Pages for more detail than you care to know. I think it's useful to put a small note at the top of the copied section to explain where it came from.

2) Putting "GAN" for that one is the right thing to do. Nice work. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:16, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks!  – Corinne (talk) 03:01, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

(I added a "2" after the section heading "Archiving" because there was another section with that same heading just above it.) I just moved the request for 2013–2014 Canucks season article to the archives page. I also moved the entire discussion to the Requests talk page and removed the "July 2016" heading from the requests page since it was the last request for July. I hope I've done everything correctly. I noticed in the request that the request was made as a result of a GA Reassessment done, I believe, in May. I wondered if some mention of that needs to be in the far right-hand column on the archives page.  – Corinne (talk) 01:32, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

I added an attribution statement on the copied section. Use the code GAR for a good article reassessment, as directed at the top of the Archives page (until a moment ago, it said "Good Article Review", which was the wrong name). – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:26, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Oh...O.K. Thank you.  – Corinne (talk) 00:19, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

List of Old Emanuels

Please could you stop changing the list? Randomly and from out of nowhere it suddenly gets reduced to what you think it should be, let it revert to what it was. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Travis Knightley Wallace (talk • contribs) 18:20, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Please read WP:LISTPEOPLE, which is a Misplaced Pages guideline. I removed only people who did not have links to Misplaced Pages articles, as I explained on the talk page. Thanks. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:12, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Template:Infobox officeholder

Hello ... I'm Wikipedian Polish Misplaced Pages ... and I write on a certain issue .... As for the template: policies infobox..a namely parameters Date of birth / death and place of birth / death. U you in enwiki these parameters are at the end of the template .... because at the beginning of the parameter function .... and I would like to ask why it has been set ? For me ... that is, in plwiki ... these parameters are at the beginning of the template .... and I have to admit that the appearance of this template with you more suits me TharonXX (talk) 19:31, 4 August 2016 (UTC).

Sorry, I do not understand your question. It sounds like you are asking why birth and death dates are listed at the top of the infobox. I think that is just the standard practice here. I do not see a Polish version of {{Infobox officeholder}}, but when I look at the Polish version of {{Infobox person}}, birth and death dates are also listed at the top. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:18, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

pl:Szablon:Polityk infobox - This is the Polish version of the template ... come you can not see. My question was ... why with you in the Infobox officeholder ... Date of birth / death and place of birth / death are at the very end? TharonXX (talk) 19:21, 5 August 2016 (UTC).

Look at Alexander Mackenzie (politician), Abraham Lincoln, and Albert Speer. The information about the person's offices appears first, followed by personal details. The first information in "Personal details" is the birth and death date.

I see that in pl:Antonio López de Santa Anna and other infoboxes on pl.WP, the personal details are listed first, and the offices are listed after that. That looks fine too. Each Misplaced Pages can make its own choice about small details of style like that. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:12, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Why do you invented that these parameters were in the end ... do you approve of it too? Please ... answer me this question. And one more thing ... why do not you answer my talk page? Greetings from Poland TharonXX (talk) 08:27, 6 August 2016 (UTC).

It doesn't matter what I think. The design of templates is a matter of consensus on each Misplaced Pages. And I do not know what you mean about answering your talk page. I am answering you here. – Jonesey95 (talk) 12:04, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors July 2016 Drive 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 July 2016 Backlog Elimination Drive. Congratulations, and thank you for your contributions! Stfg (talk) 15:22, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Bot should add more than four editors and add displayeditors=29 if there are exactly 4 editors

Do you know if this citation bot bug still exists. It looks like the fix is in the source code. Also, I posted a bunch of fixes to the citation bot talk page. Do you know if anyone exists to actually look at and add my code to the dev version. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 21:38, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't know. You'd have to find a journal article with more than four editors and see if Citation Bot fills them in.

As for who might be able to implement code, look in the Citation bot talk page archives for the WMF editor(s) who posted there sometime in 2015 (I think). You'll have to ping him/her/them. – Jonesey95 (talk) 02:41, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

done. Feel free to look at my code. php is not my language of choice AManWithNoPlan (talk) 04:28, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

I hope one of them replies. I have what I think are source code solutions for many of the bugs -- including both comments cause trouble bugs. Seriously, in one spot, the comment finder is a greedy search: removed EVERYTHING between first and last comment. Oops AManWithNoPlan (talk) 21:13, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

ISBN syntax

This one. -- Magioladitis (talk) 21:50, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Done. Maybe Checkwiki could look for those. – Jonesey95 (talk) 02:01, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. It is in my to-do list together with this one. I am good in finding many cases :) -- Magioladitis (talk)

And yet one more case: , . -- Magioladitis (talk) 11:52, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

I may need your help with this one. -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:05, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Done. WP editors are so creative! – Jonesey95 (talk) 12:38, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Perfect! In fact many of these I can do by myself but it is sooooo awesome to share these peculiarities with others. -- Magioladitis (talk) 13:04, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

FAC: The Ecstatic

Hi. If you have the time and interest, I'd really appreciate having one more reviewer look at my nomination of The Ecstatic for featured status. Dan56 (talk) 10:09, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Done. Let me know if you need help with those citations. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:15, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Packy

Would it be wrong of me to take on the GAN nomination as well, after I am done with the copy edit? Or would I now be considered an editor who has made significant contributions? -Pax Verbum 05:01, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

"Reviewers may not review articles that they have edited significantly". – Jonesey95 (talk) 12:21, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. I saw that, but wasn't sure if I was considered a significant contributor now or not. Oh well, I will find another to work on. Thanks again! -Pax Verbum 14:59, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

I consider my own copy edits very significant, so I stay away and let someone else have the GA Reviewer glory. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:53, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Your good idea and good approach

(discussion moved to Talk:Jane Austen on 16 August 2016). – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:47, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Jane Austen: strongly disagree with convert from MLA

• strongly disagree with convert from MLA  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 23:15, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Noted. Please do not fork the conversation. There are already two conversations happening: one at the FAC page about the problems with the refs, and one at the Talk page about solutions. – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:15, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

I know what a fork is, but unfortunately the relevant edits/editors do not have a STOP button similar to bots. A bit of extra communication was necessary.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 03:22, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

I keep an eye on my watchlist. I have not edited the article following your objections in the threads in question. Thank you for being willing to discuss. We await a proposal from you that will resolve the many problems that the current choice of citation style has introduced and that make the article difficult to maintain and verify. – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:25, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

• You haven't edited?  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 07:52, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Correct. I did not edit the article until you agreed that continuing to add sfn templates was compatible with your proposal to use the wikicite template. If you have diffs to the contrary, let me know. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:48, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Then you only added sfns, and didn't work on the cite books? Well if that's so then I was wrong and I am sorry. But it is neither here nor there. I have already Opposed the FAC nom. I would be hesitant to continue discussing this on any forum, though would do so if necessary. Sorry for the trouble.   Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 13:52, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Sorry if I was unclear. Here's the timeline.

1. You made your helpful post on the FAC page with a list of inconsistent and broken citations.
2. After some discussion about how to fix those citations, I edited the article's references and bibliography based on discussions in which multiple editors concluded that CS1 templates would work best for standardizing the citations.
3. You objected to those changes.
4. I ceased editing the article at that point, since doing so would be a breach of good faith discussions.
5. Once you agreed on the FAC page to the fact that continuing to add sfn templates would be compatible with any citation style, including MLA, I continued to add sfn templates to improve the article's verifiability. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:18, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Note: There appears to be FULL CONSENSUS among all 5 participating editors (@Jonesey95:, @RexxS:, @Prairieplant:, @Clpo13:, and myself) that Jonesey95 should continue with the reformatting of the citations throughout the article as was started yesterday with multiple supporting editors opposed by one hold-out editor named User:Lingzhi. The format being used by Jonesey95 is identical to one which is used in dozens and dozens of peer reviewed articles at Misplaced Pages for years now and has in no way detracted from those peer review articles in their current FA and GA status even though User:Lingzhi is opposed to this well established standard. Further, User:RexxS has made a generous offer to switch the article to an alternate cite style is trying to bring the one hold-out editor towards consensus, and was immediately turned down by User:Lingzhi. User:Lingzhi apparently is opposed to the general Misplaced Pages policy as written in WP:CITEVAR and is using this article's assessment as a forum for pressing his old preference for MLA formatting which is only one option at Misplaced Pages (WP:Forumshop). It is suggested that User:Lingzhi recognize that there is a full consensus for supporting Jonesey95 on the reformatting which was started yesterday and that when there is full consensus then it is up to User:Lingzhi to start to move closer to the consensus of five editors rather than remain a single hold-out. User:Lingzhi may move his discussion to the Village Pump policy discussion board if needed, and his Talk page is notified as to WP:Forumshop which any editor can report. User:Jonesey95 is free to continue the reformatting of the Jane Austen article given the FULL CONSENSUS of the five participating editors, with Lingzhi the sole hold-out. We look forward to your being to continue the nice reformatting which you stared yesterday since you have multiple editors fully supporting. Cheers. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 15:10, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Are you sure about that?

Undid revision 734936593 by RexxS (talk). This edit removed a chapter name and put in the wrong year. We need to be very careful.

Are you sure about that? You're right about the year. The chapter name is irrelevant to WP:V if we have the page number. The work consulted should be fully cited: Grey, "Chawton", in The Jane Austen Companion, 38 is insufficient. We now have a cite error. --RexxS (talk) 18:41, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)There is no book by Grey listed in 2006 that I can see. It came up as a big red error with User:Ucucha/HarvErrors.js installed, which is how I noticed it. As for the chapter name, it is very helpful, some would say required, for a full citation, and since the chapter names of these books are currently in the article but not in the bibliography, I am keeping them. If there is consensus to discard the useful chapter names, we can discard them, but it seems risky to do so, given the sketchy nature of the verifiability of the References at this point.

What citation error are you referring to? There is a link to the full citation. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:46, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Look at your last edit - don't you see the red "Cite error: A <ref> tag is missing the closing </ref> (see the help page)"? I fixed it now, but it would help if you check if it was what you wanted. --RexxS (talk) 18:53, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

The best way to use chapter names with harvard referencing is to have separate full citations for each chapter cited. It allows the actual author of each chapter to be cited properly. See Oxygen toxicity #Sources for an example of two different chapters of Bennett and Elliott's physiology and medicine of diving being cited. --RexxS (talk) 18:59, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I do see that red error now. I neglected to delete the Grey 2006 ref while replacing it with a corrected one. Thanks for catching it.

As for citing chapters, I think that you will find some opposition to what you describe as the best way; in your example, the chapters are separated from each other, even though they come from the same book. That is less than ideal. That is why I have noted in my edit summaries that my edits to short footnotes for chapters are partial and may need to be cleaned up once we see what they look like as a whole. We should definitely obtain consensus on the article's talk page before listing all of the chapters of a book in the Bibliography. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:10, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Take a look at Victoria's comments on my talk page, User talk:RexxS #Jane Austen: "A separate entry needs to be made for each chapter. I've done this in a number of literature articles I've brought to FA (as did Awadewit) so I'm sure you know where to look for inspiration."

You don't need to list all the chapters of a book: just the ones that you're citing. Have a think about it? Cheers --RexxS (talk) 21:38, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

<subliminal suggestion>{{harvc}}</subliminal suggestion>

—Trappist the monk (talk) 21:57, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I have been thinking about this very thing from the moment I started working on the short citations. My gut feeling is that listing the cited chapters under the books in which they are contained is probably the best way to go. That may resolve the concerns that Victoriaearle has been attempting to get through my thick head about what goes in a short citation versus a full citation. If "Smith 105" were hyperlinked to a full citation for "Smith, Jane. "Chapter about Jane Austen's Teeth". Thoughtful book about Jane Austen. Ed. Mary Brown. Oxford: Oxford Back Alley Press, 1996.", or linked to a shorter version of the chapter citation that is indented under the citation for the full work, then that would make the short citation verifiable, keep everything organized, and look really great.

p.s. to Trappist: harvc probably won't work here, because MLA format is strongly desired. I believe I can make the Bibliography work without it. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:08, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Did you take a look at Ormulum? That's more or less what MLA looks like. The citations in Jane Austen never looked like that. --RexxS (talk) 22:36, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

I have no interest in arguing about what is or is not MLA. The article's citations need to ensure verifiability. Other editors can decide what citation format they want, and once the article is verifiable, I will help format the citations. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:44, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Source for Charlotte Bronte short citations in Jane Austen

Jonesey95 I could not figure where to put this on the Talk page for Jane Austen, conversations move so quickly! I am giving you my research rather than entering it myself, as I suspect you will have changes from what I would put anyway, on account of the ISBN uncertainty.

First reference in the Bibliography list for Reception history of Jane Austen is Brontë, Charlotte. "Charlotte Brontë on Jane Austen". Jane Austen: The Critical Heritage, 1812–1870. Ed. B. C. Southam. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1968. ISBN 0-7100-2942-X. 126–28.

citation |last=Brontë |first=Charlotte |chapter=Charlotte Brontë on Jane Austen |editor-last=Southam |editor=first=B C |title=1811-1870 |series=The Critical Heritage |location=London |publisher=Routledge and Kegan Paul |year=1968 |isbn=0-7100-2942-X |pages=126-128

This covers the two short citations in the Jane Austen article now, with author Brontë. From my writing on British variation of English articles, I am accustomed to dropping periods, where they would be wanted for American English. Hence, first = B C above.

http://www.slideshare.net/CRSohaib/routledgejaneaustenthecriticalheritage1811-1870mar1996-41290520 lists the Charlotte Brontë and Lewes articles as being in this book. This book has many editions.

This is a link to the 2012 edition, still with both authors included, and Scott as well. https://books.google.com/books?id=2JwOGLkVWM8C

Linking the ISBN to WorldCat brings up four editions. One is clearly the follow on to 1811-1870 (note it is 1811 not 1812), the other three seem to be this very book, but WorldCat does not list the essays included, as it does with Harold Bloom's essay compilations, or I did not find the right edition to see that list, also possible. Does someone really have that 1968 edition if the book is so frequently updated? 1968 was before ISBN system began. Not sure if the ISBN used in other article is useful. Okay to use a newer ISBN? Once Southam produced a second volume, it became a series, The Critical Heritage Series.

I hope this is helpful. --Prairieplant (talk) 17:12, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Nice work. I have fixed the Brontë and Lewes short citations. Any thoughts on Brownstein? – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:20, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

If we can get things back on board at the article, should we invite 13 back to participate? (Its Saturday and I don't know if you'll be signing in today. Cheers.) Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 15:16, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

I have no opinion on whether that is a good idea. I'm tired of saying the same thing and making the same friendly offers over and over on the JA talk page and being beaten about the head and shoulders for it. I'm waiting for things to settle down. I will be happy to return when editors are ready for the skills I can bring to the article. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:21, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Bohemond III of Antioch

I just finished copy-editing Bohemond III of Antioch, and I went to add the WikiProject banner shell and the GOCE template, and when I looked at it in preview, there were two messages that there was an unknown parameter in the WikiProject Biography / Royalty and Nobility banner. Something is not right, but I don't know how to fix it. Can you take a look at it? Thanks.  – Corinne (talk) 02:53, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Fixed. – Jonesey95 (talk) 02:56, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks!  – Corinne (talk) 02:57, 19 August 2016 (UTC) I made two slight changes (hope you don't mind): 1) I changed "Iii" to "III" in Bohemond's name in the Biography template, and 2) I "hid" the GOCE notice. If there is a reason to have it visible, I'd be interested to know it and will reverse that. By the way, did you see the note I left you at User talk:Jonesey95#Archiving 2, above?  – Corinne (talk) 03:02, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Sad news

I've got some really sad news. Since I learned of it, I've been crying and cursing at all the Gods. Sigh, my mother-in-law is going to live and be just fine. If you need me, I'll be in the basement drinking another gallon of Everclear. Bgwhite (talk) 05:01, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

My condolences. I suggest mixing your beverage with some fruit juice, at least. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:20, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

ISBN

Pages with ISBN error increase again. Please help. -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:31, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

A Study on Iranian Theatre

The ISBN in this page works properly. I do not see why the red indication that it is "invalid". Do return the isbn. Sth else has to be mended perhaps.Salarabdolmohamadian (talk) 19:53, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for this note. There was an invisible character in the ISBN. I removed it. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:43, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Pages with ISBN error increased again. Please help. -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:32, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

You and I have fixed all of the easy ones. Someone will have to do book-by-book research to fix the rest. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:37, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Peer Review - GoT

Hi Jonesey95, I hope everything is fine. I was wondering if you have the time.. could you take up(look at/review) the "Peer review" for Battle of the Bastards(Season 6, Episode 9 of Game of Thrones ("Spoiler alert if you have not seen the series")). I am trying to get this to a "Featured Artice".. (It has already been passed for "Good Article") and I need some one to review and tell me what to fix/do to make that happen.(Misplaced Pages:Peer review/Battle of the Bastards/archive1) AffeL (talk) 20:14, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Done. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:54, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Need your kind attention at DataCore software

Hi Jonesey, I know you are a WikiProject Guild of Copy Editor. You recently edited DataCore software. There is ongoing edit warring between IP's and anon user User:NISMO1968. User:NISMO1968 has no user page. I have messaged him several time, user never replied. I don't want to involve in edit warring. I need your help here. Thanks. --Behaver (talk) 06:44, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

I believe recently created User:Behaver reverted G11 tag I put at least once himself. It looks like he's engaged with some SPAs and IPs to imitate edit war. DataCore Software (upper case "S" in a "software") was deleted few days ago by User:Seraphimblade for a good reason. User:Behaver is canvassing User_talk:Belinrahs also. NISMO1968 (talk) 06:48, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

It's very nice of you, you replied. Yes, DataCore Software was deleted. Editors will find out the truth. I'm trying to tell you about current version. Don't you think it is notable company? I have mentioned before in your talk page, Latest version has reliable references from The New York Times, Business Wire, The Register, even Forbes and Reuters. It passes the notability guidelines. Then, why are you adding TAGs? It's upto editors now, they will judge the situation. Thanks for your contributions.--Behaver (talk) 06:55, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

I decline to get involved. Creating DataCore software while a deletion review for DataCore Software was in progress was disruptive. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:09, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Template:Cite IETF

I shall direct you to Template talk:Cite IETF#Documentation substed prior to CS1 module update. 80.221.159.67 (talk) 21:40, 30 August 2016 (UTC) (edited: 21:41, 30 August 2016 (UTC))

OK. I read it. You are welcome to fix the documentation. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:43, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

My point was the template was never changed(?) as you had hoped, and thus it relies on Template:Citation/core not CS1. It is not a documentation error, but rather what you originally described. 80.221.159.67 (talk) 22:51, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

I had no hopes for the template. I was merely pointing out that the documentation was wrong. The documentation was changed in 2012 by Gadget850, possibly in anticipation of this template being converted to use the CS1 Lua module. That conversion never happened, but the CS1 documentation continued to be updated and revised to match the Lua module's features. At this point, only the CS1 templates that use the Lua module are using the CS1 documentation (AFAIK), and the Cite IETF documentation has been orphaned in an inaccurate state. Someone needs to clean it up. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:48, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

August GOCE blitz award

		The Modest Barnstar
		This barnstar is awarded to Jonesey95 for copy edits totaling over 2,000 words (including bonus and rollover words) during the GOCE August 2016 Copy Editing Blitz. Congratulations, and thank you for your contributions! – Tdslk (talk) 22:39, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:22, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Doi with date

Ta for the reversion. That explains why ... But I also asked on the template thingy somewhere as to why. To be seen I guess.
I went through the cite journal page and there are examples with outputs that don't suggest they should not be together. Does this need written clarification or do I just need to look somewhere else. ? Dave Rave (talk) 02:20, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

I have overhauled the {{cite journal}} documentation to make a few things clearer. Also, in the documentation for |access-date=, it says "Not required for linked documents that do not change. For example, access-date is not required for links to copies of published research papers accessed via DOI or a published book." – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:07, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Technical Barnstar
	For your work in cleaning up infobox parameters... thank you! —hike395 (talk) 09:54, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:25, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors September 2016 News

Guild of Copy Editors September 2016 News Hello everyone, and welcome to the September 2016 GOCE newsletter. >>> Sign up for the September Drive, already in progress! <<< July Drive: The July drive was a roaring success. We set out to remove April, May, and June 2015 from our backlog (our 149 oldest articles), and by 23 July, we were done with those months. We added July 2015 (66 articles) and copy-edited 37 of those. We also handled all of the remaining Requests from June 2016. Well done! Overall, we recorded copy edits to 240 articles by 20 editors, reducing our total backlog to 13 months and 1,656 articles, the second-lowest month-end total ever. August Blitz: this one-week copy-editing blitz ran from 21 through 27 August; the theme was sports-related articles in honor of the 2016 Summer Olympics. Of the eight editors who signed up, five editors removed 11 articles from the backlog. A quiet blitz – everyone must be on vacation. Barnstars and rollover totals are located here. Thanks to all editors who took part. 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, Corinne and Tdlsk. >>> Sign up for the September Drive! <<<

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:36, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

== dear Jonesey95 Jaishankar Chigurula (Director) bio is not copied from IMDB, IMDB editors was copied from Misplaced Pages Jaishankar Chigurula (Director) bio updated in IMDb very recent after the Misplaced Pages hope you understand this. thank you ==chsrivaas (talk) 12:43, 13 September 2016 (UTC)