User talk:DavidBrooks/Archive 2

WP:AWB
If you are changing lots of EB1911 linked articles you might find WP:AWB a useful tool. If nothing else it will allow you to list all the entries in a category and by you clicking on the links in the list open a web page in your default browser to the article for you to edit.

The sort of simple thing it can be set up to do is change
 * to

To see the sort of thing it can be used for you can check out my AWB account [PBS-AWB contributions]. -- PBS (talk) 01:14, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks; I'll take a look. David Brooks (talk) 06:11, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Template:EB1911 poster
I noticed this edit well done. I assumed that you checked that there was no copied text left in the article as you removed the attribution, but I am concerned with the hidden comment and I have changed it to  as the inline citation will still be needed. EB1911 poster is for use in external links or further reading if an article does not contain copied text EB1911 or citations Cite EB1911 to an article from EB1911 which resides on Wikisource.

Also I added a url link to the citation so that the current "title=Googe, Barnabe" links to a copy of the article on archive.org. You will find several different options for filling the url field at Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition. If you have already done the hard work of looking up the volume and page (as you did here) then archive.org is I think the best option. However a quicker fix if volume or page is not known is to use: because it has a search engine. So in this case searching for "Barnabe Googe" (they search their names the way Wikipedia holds them) gives: If you look at the bottom of the page they return you will see their permanent url which is a numeric location: This can then be used to create a link to the article like so:
 * http://www.studylight.org/enc/bri/view.cgi?w=Barnabe+Googe
 * http://www.studylight.org/enc/bri/view.cgi?number=3771
 * (this example miss out other desirable parameters like volume)

-- PBS (talk) 11:00, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * , thanks for the comment. I have edited many articles by referring to the archive.org source (where I got the page numbers). The most recent have been using my new -AWB atavar. I considered it not worth the extra effort to add the URL, because in theory there will be a WS copy sooner or later, but I now realize that's probably a false economy because (a) the URL is right there in my face (b) it looks like later is a better bet than sooner. I'm also wary of including links to outside parties, because they could change one day (look at all the links people have created to 1911encyclopedia.org) and I don't like sending people to studylight because of the popup ad, currently for Russell Crowe in Noah. But if you think the archive.org URLs are here to stay (although the URL name pattern is a little inconsistent, and volume 20 seems to be missing), then I'll work them into the links in future.


 * You're right about that one sample. I understand the distinction between an inline citation and further reading, but that one must have slipped by, and thanks for catching it. David Brooks (talk) 18:03, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I would agree with you about studylight (but I think any link is better than none), and would by preference use archive.org. I do not think that you need worry about link rot. If it takes place then it should be relatively easy to fix with a regular expression in AWB. I suspect that ports of articles to Wikisource will be relatively slow. Not infrequently I create an article on Wikisource for EB1911. Do you know how to do that? If not take a look at
 * Wikisource:Wikisource:WikiProject 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Transclusion
 * --PBS (talk) 18:26, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Marc Marie, Marquis de Bombelles
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Marc Marie, Marquis de Bombelles, and it appears to include material copied directly from http://www.theodora.com/encyclopedia/b2/marc_marie_marquis_de_bombelles.html.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 02:49, 1 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Both this new article and the detected page are copies of the PD EB1911 article. David Brooks (talk) 03:01, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

August 2014
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=619575627 your edit] to Les Petits Riens may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 18:12, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
 * performances. Although the ballet music was well-received, Mozart was not credited with it, and he was at the time little-known in Paris.
 * Fixed David Brooks (talk) 21:53, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Attribution
I have just visited the user talk:Library Guy, and saw that you left a message there. Library Guy is a legitimate sock puppet of user:Bob Burkhardt.

The reason I wanted to leave Bob a message was over this edit to request that if he alters the author of an EB1911 that he checks to see if short citations need changing as well.

In that edit he also removed the attribution string which I have replaced. He and I disagree over this see Wikipedia talk:Plagiarism/Archive 9. The problem is that if the Attribution line is removed then someone sooner or later will sort the attribution source back into the list sorted by author in the reference section.

That is a bad idea because the prominent placement of attribution was done primarily as a political compromise between Wikipedia editors who think that porting content from EB1911 and the like is a good idea and those who do not and want everything rewritten as summaries. One of the leading and influential proponents of the do not copy party is SlimVirgin see for example her many comments in the same archive. From my understanding of her position if she was to have her way there would be no PD text in any Wikipedia article. Only by prominently displaying the attribution of sources can the accusations of plagiarism be negated. -- PBS (talk) 20:39, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
 * As I don't spend time on the back-and-forth discussions on these, I'm happy to take guidance from someone whom I perceive as higher rank :-). I agree that the Attribution note is useful, and I'll start putting it in again, but it has two minor problems. The first is that people occasionally ask me what it means. The more serious is whether to use it when an article is 90% PD? 85%? 80%? I think judgment can be applied in those cases, and I've been adding citation-needed when there is a PD article with one or two inserted but uncited sentences. And, by the way, I've been using ;Attribution, which I think is semantically more accurate than putting it in explicit triple-' (cf the h1/h2/h3 HTML tags).


 * More seriously: I'd say to "those who ... want everything rewritten as summaries" - when do you plan to start? It's a monumental task and nobody seems willing to organize or execute it. And I think just changing sentence structure, or modernizing the grammar, without adding a whit of content, is actually worse than leaving the literal copied text. You're not adding value; you are essentially trying to hide the copying. It's trickery.


 * Finally, when you say "Library Guy is a legitimate sock puppet" I see that his userpage does acknowledge that it is a "service" of Bob, but I don't know what that means. Is it a good thing or a bad thing? David Brooks (talk) 02:43, 18 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I always used to use ;Attribution but have stopped recently because I was made aware that apparently it creates some broken HTML code that is confusing for some automating text to voice readers used by blind people.
 * The use of sockpuppets falls into two groups. Bob's useage is upfront and presumably he has his reasons for doing it. I have a sock puppet as well it is called PBS-AWB I use it for running AWB because I make thousands of small edits using it and I do not want those mixed into my general usage. Where it becomes a problem is when users uses a hidden sockpuppet to help create false consensuses for example expressing an opinion for or against a page deletion with both their own account and one or more sockpuppets. -- PBS (talk) 06:31, 18 August 2014 (UTC)


 * As to your other point about when to use bold attribution. I do it more on how many sources there are in the References section. If there is only the EB1911 template then I don't use bold Attribution, if there are dozens then I do, it really depend on how clearly the EB1911 templates stand out of the crowd.
 * If there is only a paragraph or two EB1911 text in a larger article then I use the inline=x parameter for an inline citation to those paragraphs and do not necessarily place any article attribution in a separate references section.
 * The edit I made to the Charles_XIV_John_of_Sweden is fairly typical of what I do when there is text added to the original EB1911 without attribution (Notice also the section unreferenced warning in the Ancestry section).
 * As always as editors we have to use our common sense and make our own judgements, the problem is that some editors do not seem to have any! --PBS (talk) 06:54, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * yes, you recommended the alternate account to me (v.s.) as well as pointing out the inline parameter. Looking at its edit count of 1,005, David-Brooks-AWB seems to have been something of an obsession recently. But I am transparent about it in both directions by using User alternative account name and User alternate acct. By the way, I made a private change to AWB to include hot-key insert of commonly used text. One day I'll parameterize it (the strings are hard-wired for simplicity) and offer it to the project.


 * I can see another problem with the Attribution header, independent of markup method: if someone starts to replace or supplant the EB1911 text in a previously unloved article, they are also going to have to remember to take the header away, when it becomes inappropriate. I have adopted a canned comment to remind future editors, but that can really stand by itself as an attribution acknowledgement. David Brooks (talk) 21:25, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Glad to see AWB has been of help. Happy editing. -- PBS (talk) 05:38, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

This and This
Per you recent comment on plagiarism talk page.

I stopped using "This source..." some time ago and replaced the sentence with "Endnotes:" (I have just updated JL article with this change).

This was done because I think it is more precise (and saved me some typing). I hope your English teacher would have approved. -- PBS (talk) 23:26, 19 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I just saw you exchange on Wikisource with Slowking4, Please see user talk:Slowking4 for an explanation of what SK meant. -- PBS (talk) 17:43, 12 January 2015 (UTC)


 * You mean the "GGTF" initialism? I wondered. Is he aka Beetstra? Anyway, while I appreciate the initial creation of pages, I wish he wouldn't mark article proofread when they really can't have been read at all carefully. David Brooks (talk) 05:37, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Template:cite EB1911
is a wrapper around which is a wrapper around. The only part of the display which is down to is the prescript "This article incorporates text from a publication now in the public domain:"

So using your example (but using first= and last=)

If placed in

uses in the parlance CS1 (see help:CS1) this uses full stops as you note as a delimiter. It also uses a full stop as a postscript. There is another format CS2 which is used by (see help:CS2). It uses a comma as a delimiter and "none" as the postscript:

Until recently one could change the delimiter and the postscript using the variables which already exist in the templates: separator= postscript= But then the underlying code was changed to "deprecate" these two parameters and replace it with "mode" which currently takes two values "cs1" and "cs2". These change the default behaviour of the templates to emulate each other. There a number of changes, but the ones you and I would be interested in is the change to the delimiter, the postscript and also the default behaviour of "ref=" (it is on by default in cs2). The reason I chose to wrap around  was because cs1 is by far the most common format, and the thinking was that  should look like most other citations in an article. However you can change the format like so:

-- PBS (talk) 07:38, 15 April 2015 (UTC)