User talk:JJMC89/Archives/2018/April

Moving as (Unix)
Sorry if it was not clear. The title of as (Unix) within the article is capitalized, unlike for at (Unix), ar (Unix), etc. so it should be changed for consistency. I tried a move but I don't think wikipedia's software liked it. Wqwt (talk) 05:40, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Never mind, was fixed User_talk:Wqwt Wqwt (talk) 05:42, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Re bots
Regarding the various edits you are making where you remove a line, with the explanation "no evidence of any ongoing bot issues": has it occurred to you that the lack of "any ongoing bot issues" might be due to the the presence of the bots line? And when someone uses a bot to make some questionable mass changes, will you help with the restoration? &diams; J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:46, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
 * That could be the case. However, please refer to Template:Bots/doc: In the encyclopedia spaces: avoid using the template as a blunt instrument; address the root problem with the bot owner or bot community; remove the template tag once the underlying problem has been resolved. There was no evidence of a problem being addressed with the bot owner(s), so the template was just being used as a blunt instrument, contrary to the documentation. Some pages where the template was used, no bots ever edited the page. For some others, the bot in question is no longer in operation. The bot op is responsible for cleaning up after their own bot. If it were my bot, sure. —&thinsp;JJMC89 03:35, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * The objectionable edits were some years ago, and objections were made, but as some editors think that (e.g.) merging footnotes is A Good Idea, it was considerably less time and argument to simply block. Whether the general lack of objectionable edits since then is due to the effectiveness of the block, or simply the retirement of the bot operators, does not particularly concern me. But I will make a note to let you know the next time a bot-mess needs to be cleaned up. &diams; J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:35, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't know what the problem with merging footnotes is. It is one of the AWB WP:GENFIXES. I don't recall removing any . —&thinsp;JJMC89 02:54, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
 * The problem with merging footnotes is the introduction of "named-refs", which is generally unuseful, and makes editing more difficult. I am not aware of GENFIXES recommending that except where the reference name is the same. &diams; J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:52, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
 * It merges them if the reference is exactly the same: WP:GENFIXES. I prefer named references when  contains long references to reduce the amount of wikitext and the need to update multiple copies when something, say a URL, changes. For short footnotes it doesn't matter much. I noticed some denying IABot. Why would you want to have dead links? Sure, it may change your desired whitespace, but having archives is better than HTTP 404s. —&thinsp;JJMC89 05:58, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Your BRFA
Hi JJMC89, your recent BRFA (Bots/Requests for approval/JJMC89 bot 13) has been approved. Happy editing, — xaosflux  Talk 00:17, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Mechanisms of the English common law
Your recent edit on a fairly new short article, Mechanisms of the English common law, called for more citations; but it already has 13 WP links and 19 citations. (Not bad going, I would have thought!) Are there any particular statements that you feel are insufficiently cited/verifiable? Arrivisto (talk) 15:35, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Wikilinks are irrelevant. The number of citations doesn't matter if there is still unsourced material. The "Issues of the common law" section has plenty of unsourced statements. Example: and most lesser superior courts [...] If not, it is obiter dicta. doesn't have any references. —&thinsp;JJMC89 05:20, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I have edited that section in the interests of clarity, and will add a couple of extra citations in support. Arrivisto (talk) 11:35, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

JJMC89 bot II information page edit notices
I wonder why JJMC89 bot II added the information page edit notice for Manual of Style/Layout and other MOS subpages? My understanding is that they are guidelines, not information pages. --Paul_012 (talk) 14:03, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Your understanding is correct. Someone asked to add it for Category:Wikipedia how-to, which I didn't realize intersected with policies and guidelines. I already stopped future additions for that category, but I forgot to check for and remove other erroneous additions, which I've now done. Thanks for pointing it out. —&thinsp;JJMC89 02:00, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Infobox Album subst trick producing error on random pages?
Hi there JJMC89, deprecated fixer bot works for most pages, but even pages not in the Module:String errors category seem to have a small chance of creating an error when the templates are substituted? I am not sure what is causing this. User:Arbor to SJ/Stages (Nick Cannon album) is one example (diff). I wouldn't even call that one the bot's fault even, as I previewed what it would result as if I manually did the subst trick and it produced the same result. Do you have any idea as to what the cause might be? -- The SandDoctor Talk 05:03, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
 * When year is not included, the template attempts to parse released for a year (%d%d%d+). Since Unreleased, there is no match for %d%d%d+ and the error is generated. Prior to being subst none of the previous is checked since This album is used. The bot isn't doing anything wrong, but this (manual cleanup required) is why I didn't take on this job when the template was changed last year. If Category:Music infoboxes with Module:String errors were empty, you would be able to easily see pages added to it as the bot edits and fix them manually. This API query will show the category changes for your bot.  This is the change for your example.   A SQL query can also be written if that is easier to review. —&thinsp;JJMC89 05:55, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Until things are resolved, I think that the best solution would be for the bot to look for the released parameter and (assuming it is present) analyze its value. If it does not match a numeric value, then the bot just skips the page and moves on. If it is not present or it does pattern match \d\d\d+, then the bot goes ahead as usual. What do you think of that approach until a better fix is created for the actual template itself to stop the error? -- The SandDoctor Talk 18:58, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Skipping when there isn't a match would work. —&thinsp;JJMC89 21:59, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
 * It does work for Infobox album but Extra chronology is now experiencing the same issue (diff). Not looking forward to the beast of a regular expression that will be needed to find all date formats in a given string. -- The SandDoctor Talk 23:42, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
 * In addition to checking for the match, you should still skip pages in the error category. There are many things that can cause the string errors that are put in the category. —&thinsp;JJMC89 23:50, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I was planning to combine both . Currently working on manually converting (with bot) Extra chronology as it seems to be error prone with 'subst'. -- The SandDoctor Talk 00:56, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Ron Davis (filmmaker)
Wikimedia was contacted regarding the paid editing template on Ron Davis (filmmaker) ticket:2018041010013882 As you may know, contents of OTRS tickets are confidential. I have urged the person writing to us to reach out to you on this talk page.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  15:53, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I've been meaning to sign up fro OTRS. See User talk:JJMC89/Archives/2017/September and the linked COIN archive. —&thinsp;JJMC89 16:00, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the links. One for you: OTRS volunteering-- S Philbrick (Talk)  16:26, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I see that the person took my advice and wrote you below. I don't know how active you are in paid editing but almost certainly more so than I have been. As an OTRS agent, we are receiving more and more inquiries regarding templates identifying possible paid editing. If we have provided some advice on how editors should respond I've not seen it. If you are aware of such advice, I'd love to see it so I can used in the future, but if you are active in the area, I hope you can encourage other editors active in the area to work on some generic advice pages.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  16:30, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not aware of anything specifically for paid editing, but I'm not very active there. Generally, review and cleanup should be approached the same as any other strong COI. —&thinsp;JJMC89 04:45, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

This article may have been created or edited in return for undisclosed payments
I was aware of my Wikipedia page for several years (Ron Davis (filmmaker)) and checked it out. I noted that it said "This article may have been created or edited in return for undisclosed payments". All of the information is correct and I did not pay for the page. I emailed Wikipedia about this and they suggested I write to you to fix it since you flagged it. I do not want to appear to be paying people for a Wikipedia page. Do you have any advice on next steps. I tried to read and navigate Wikipedia, but it is completely overwhelming and I have no idea what to do. I am mot eve sure I did this email correctly. I got the instructions from Stephen Philbrick at Wikipedia. thank you Ron Davis 2603:3020:2A03:6D00:C08A:EA75:BEEC:F58D (talk) 16:15, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Hello, Mr. Davis. The article was created by an editor who abused multiple accounts while editing for pay without disclosure. Once the editor was blocked for violating Wikipedia policies, I tagged the articles that he contributed to for review and cleanup (the message you say at the top of the article). Typically, unconflicted editors will review tagged articles, cleaning them up and/or requesting deletion as necessary. I've made some edits to the article and removed the tag. In general, article subjects, such as yourself, can request edits by following the process outlined here. —&thinsp;JJMC89 05:05, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you very very much. This is very helpful. Ron Davis 2601:58B:200:595E:7988:299C:1E74:2DB7 (talk) 13:05, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Aaron Jakubenko
You've moved the article to my sandbox again after the article was expanded and many more citations were provided. I've seen many more articles about actors with less roles and less notability, so not sure why this particular one is receiving so much scrutiny. Looking for some guidance here. What is it that still makes this article not worthy of wikipedia? J Bar (talk) 22:29, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
 * The sourcing is not good. 1) WP:UGC, 2) not independent - interview, 3) not independent (network airing Neighbours), 4) only mentioned in a caption, 5) unreliable - student publication, 6) no in-depth coverage / not independent, 7) not independent - interview, 8) unreliable - gossip site, 9) mention only, 10) no in-depth coverage. —&thinsp;JJMC89 03:31, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Upcoming changes to wikitext parsing
Hello,

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

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

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

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

Another sockpuppet?
You deleted some garbage from my Talk Page in this diff (3 April 2018).

It looks like I may have collected another one, see this diff (23 April 2018). Yrs, Narky Blert (talk) 10:34, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Its Haiyenslna. WP:RBI is the best option here. —&thinsp;JJMC89 14:01, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks a bunch

 * No problem! —&thinsp;JJMC89 00:52, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Template:Country data Canada edit request on 25 April 2018
The image of 1868, 1921, and 1957 flags have broken since the pages had been moved to File:Canadian Red Ensign (1921–1957).svg, File:Canadian Red Ensign (1957–1965).svg, and File:Canadian Red Ensign (1868–1921).svg. Would you edit that? Thank you – Flix11 (talk) 05:17, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅ —&thinsp;JJMC89 05:34, 26 April 2018 (UTC)