User talk:John of Reading/Archive 7

Cought/Caught
Yeah, I wondered about that military unit name also.

There are over 30 words that I spend my life correcting. Seperate is the worst.

EoGuy (talk) 17:25, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I thought it was worth checking, and there was a Google hit for "Rocky Cought Cavalry". I've spent about a year and a half working through Lists of common misspellings/Grammar and Misc. Just another few weeks... -- John of Reading (talk) 17:33, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I thought it was worth checking, and there was a Google hit for "Rocky Cought Cavalry". I've spent about a year and a half working through Lists of common misspellings/Grammar and Misc. Just another few weeks... -- John of Reading (talk) 17:33, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Noted. -- John of Reading (talk) 21:18, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Could you direct me?
Hey John of Reading! Thanks for all the help on my talk page, I don't know how I could be a Wikipedian without people like you! I appreciate the advice about Graphic Lab, even though it wasn't your area of expertees, so could you please direct me to an expert I could talk to on wikipedia with more info on how to use Graphic Lab? I tried reading some of the tutorials on there, but it mostly gave me definitions on how and why to use certain things like SVG's, not actual how to convert images over or anything, so if you have any people in that department please post their username on my talk page.

Thanks for all you help,

--Lolax Marks (talk) 19:50, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * (I've moved your message to the bottom of the page, as is usual for pages like these - see Help:Using talk pages).


 * Wikipedia has a weekly newspaper, the Wikipedia Signpost, and I found this page from 2010 about the Graphics Lab in the archives. That page mentions five "graphists" by name, and I've had a quick look at their recent contributions. Of the five, the last three seem to be the most active recently at the Graphics Lab. I suggest you look at User:Fallschirmjäger, User:Gringer and User:Orionist, and if you like what you see there, leave a message at the bottom of the corresponding "user talk" page(s). -- John of Reading (talk) 21:41, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you John of Reading you saved the day!

--Lolax Marks (talk) 16:10, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Quick tip
Regarding [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)&diff=478215592 this edit], you can link to threads with the same name by using the same anchor with a number after it. Village pump (technical) would have linked to the section of interest. Cheers, Goodvac (talk) 08:11, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * That would break when the first thread gets archived, wouldn't it? But my edit hasn't worked - and when I look at the rendered HTML for WP:VPT there's no sign of my anchor. Do empty "spans" get removed somehow? -- John of Reading (talk) 08:17, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah, the names passed to the "anchor" template have to be percent-encoded. That would be it. -- John of Reading (talk) 08:28, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * You're right, it would break, but at any rate, both those threads aren't going to stay there forever. It's not working because of a little known exception—you can't use double quotes (") in this template. As for the percent-encoding, I haven't tried that in my series of tests. Goodvac (talk) 08:36, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I gave up and used the 2 suffix at the Help desk. But I've learnt something new. -- John of Reading (talk) 08:39, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Mail
NCISfan2 (talk)  17:01, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Help me
I would like to request the assistance of an admin. Please advise. Thanks! (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 06:03, 26 February 2012 (UTC))
 * You'll need to actually say what you need help with, as different admins work in different areas -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:38, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * (non-admin comment) I suspect this is about the previous section here. -- John of Reading (talk) 20:58, 26 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't see anything here that requires admin attention. Joseph, if you have a specific question or concern, please feel free to ask it and re-activate the adminhelp template.  --Chris (talk) 19:03, 27 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks to each of you. Apparently, the other editor (Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556) has stopped harassing me.  So, there is no issue at the moment.  Thank you for your help and input.  Much appreciated.  Best, Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:17, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Re: Barnstar
Thanks for the barnstar! The 2 hour window is, I suppose, the result of me beginning it at midnight and wanting to go to sleep ;)  Ruby  2010/  2013  17:12, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

oldest typo

 * Cheers! -- John of Reading (talk) 07:02, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Glad to have helped. -- John of Reading (talk) 16:46, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Mail
Thanks! NCISfan2 (talk)  17:04, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Replied by email. -- John of Reading (talk) 18:58, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Help req'd.: Wikipedia mark-up dating

 * Whilst editing, I have noticed that in some articles the dates are formatted as follows: ... on_26_Aprilampersandnbsp;1997_ at... which produces this: on 26 April 1997 at... What is the advantage? Can somebody help me please?  Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 18:10, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
 * That's a non-breaking space. It tells the browser to avoid laying out the text like this...
 * blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah 26 April
 * 1997 blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
 * ...with the month on one line and the year on the next. The theory is that this could make the text harder to read, but I haven't seen many dates formatted with non-breaking spaces. The style guideline is at WP:NBSP. -- John of Reading (talk) 19:10, 2 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you John of Reading for your prompt and succinct reply. I have been searching Wikipedia for an explanation for what seems like hours.  I suppose you would only use the non-breaking space after noticing its need on Show Preview before saving your edit.  Kind regards, Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 08:41, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

. I've been leaving just plain vanilla  all over the place. Will that be a problem? Milkunderwood (talk) 11:10, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Great - I thank you for this, too. I don't know any HTML, and had recently run into the exact same problem, but with a dangling opening parenthesis "(" preceding an IPAc-en icon. Someone else then fixed the problem by rewording the problem sentence. I had first just inserted a break so that it displayed properly on my monitor, but another editor reverted because it whacked out his display. Milkunderwood (talk) 10:57, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oops - I just now notice at Line break handling that it says to use
 * Help:HTML in wikitext has  . They both work. I don't know which is more correct. -- John of Reading (talk) 11:16, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, I guess I'm not creating havoc, then. Maybe a wikiexpert should change one or the other of those recommendations. Milkunderwood (talk) 11:20, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Varanus
Thanks, I think that was one of those pages I "started and meant to get back to" and it got away from me. I used the size based on a pair of lizards that I owned for about 10 years (I got them when they were already over 3 feet long). They male was just under 5 feet and the female never got any longer tham 49". I kept them in an outdoor pen in Florida so they had lots of sunshine and they were well fed on rats, rabbits, quail and chickens.  I suppose it's possible they could get to six feet or 2.1 meters, but I doubt it, personally.  Anyway, if a zoo says they can grow to 2 meters that's a more reliable source than 2 lizards I kept a while ago, which would only be anecdotal at best.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 18:53, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed! -- John of Reading (talk) 19:31, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Bad hatnote format
Thanks for fixing the hatnote at Commonly misspelled words - I saw the problem, and thought I would come back to fix it, but then forgot. Milkunderwood (talk) 10:42, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I've commented at Wikipedia talk:Lists of common misspellings. -- John of Reading (talk) 10:51, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I wondered about that. Thanks for the input. Milkunderwood (talk) 10:59, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Book:Arkansas Confederate Units
John

This is a huge task, but you have always been up to those, could you proofread this book Book:Arkansas Confederate Units?


 * Yes, that's a huge task! I fed them all into AWB, which took only seconds but didn't achieve much. I've fed the first seven into Word's spelling and grammar checker. I'll do some more tomorrow, but would like to switch to a different task this afternoon. Are you planning to get this printed for another veterans' event? If so, what's the deadline? -- John of Reading (talk) 14:08, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks so much for your efforts on completing this monumental task. There aren't enought barn stars to say thanks properly! I have moved most of the suggest corrections to the books talk page at Book talk:Arkansas Confederate Units Aleutian06 (talk) 20:07, 16 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you! I hope to do some more next week. -- John of Reading (talk) 16:37, 9 March 2012 (UTC)


 * List of Arkansas Civil War Confederate units
 * "Cadwalander"? Cadwallader is usualAleutian06 (talk) 15:40, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Cadwallader is correct, I made the change.
 * "Dandrige" or "Dandridge"?
 * Dandridge Aleutian06 (talk) 15:40, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * "Archabald"? Archibald is usual
 * Archibald Aleutian06 (talk) 15:40, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * "Bearss"? A strange surname


 * Arkansas Militia in the Civil War
 * "McGegor"? McGregor is usual
 * McGregorAleutian06 (talk) 15:40, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * "Calab"? Caleb is usual
 * "Srable"? Very unusual to have a name beginning "Sr"
 * "Bonapart"? Bonaparte is usual - and this is a very strange name for an American general
 * "Stampp"? Unusual
 * "Bearss" again, so perhaps this is valid


 * 3rd Regiment, Arkansas State Troops
 * You have the flag picture twice
 * I haven't touched the long quote in the "Battles" section, but some of the typos look more like OCR errors than genuine mistakes in the original. "a. ra."? "north side o", "re mained", "tlic"


 * 4th Regiment, Arkansas State Troops
 * Again this has the flag twice; that seems to be standard in these articles so I won't mention it again


 * 5th Regiment, Arkansas State Troops
 * I commented out an unused reference. Should it have been used as the reference for something?
 * "Doclcery" looks very odd
 * I have made changes inside the quote. He really can't have written "Eegiment"


 * 1st Arkansas Infantry Regiment
 * "Sydeny"? Sydney would be more pronounceable


 * 4th Arkansas Infantry Regiment
 * I fixed several typos in the "flags" quote. I'm assuming these were not in the original
 * Please check "fidelis ad urnam" with the source. As it stands it seems to mean "Faithful to the water-pot (urn)" which would need some explanation
 * Sources: John Lavendar or Lavender, or are they two different authors?


 * 8th Arkansas Infantry Regiment
 * Under "Battles", the sentence beginning "Major Kelly" is incomplete.


 * 10th Arkansas Infantry Regiment
 * The dates in the "Surrender" section are unclear


 * 11th and 17th Consolidated Arkansas Infantry Regiment
 * Within the book, doesn't this belong further down with the other consolidated units?
 * The quote contains two unusual characters (�) which display as "question mark in black diamond" for me. Meaning?


 * John, No rush on this one, I am trying to finish it up for a civil war roundtable in May. Thanks for the help, I will work through this issues. Aleutian06 (talk) 14:51, 1 March 2012 (UTC)


 * 12th Arkansas Infantry Regiment
 * Clarification needed - "The 12th Arkansas was officially "exchange" date of November 10, 1862"✅Aleutian06 (talk) 16:46, 9 March 2012 (UTC)


 * 13th Arkansas Infantry Regiment
 * Part of this article is missing, after "When the regiment was reorganized after the battle of Shiloh, the following field officers elected:"
 * In the reference "couchgenweb", is "Aprl" correct?


 * 14th Arkansas Infantry Regiment (McCarver's)
 * Contains links to disambiguation pages Battle of Corinth, 21st Arkansas Infantry Regiment✅Aleutian06 (talk) 16:46, 9 March 2012 (UTC)


 * 14th Arkansas Infantry Regiment (Powers')
 * Contains a link to a disambiguation page 21st Arkansas Infantry Regiment✅Aleutian06 (talk) 16:46, 9 March 2012 (UTC)


 * 15th Arkansas Infantry Regiment (Josey's)
 * "from the following counties:" - something wrong here, since a list of counties does not follow✅Aleutian06 (talk) 16:46, 9 March 2012 (UTC)


 * In the "Commanders" section, "brigadier-general" in the first sentence is followed by "Brigadier-General" in the second. Messy.✅Aleutian06 (talk) 16:46, 9 March 2012 (UTC)


 * 15th Arkansas Infantry Regiment (Northwest)
 * "is credited with the following Campaign participation credit" - would be nice to reword this if possible✅


 * 16th Arkansas Infantry Regiment
 * Contains a link to a disambiguation page 21st Arkansas Infantry Regiment✅Aleutian06 (talk) 16:46, 9 March 2012 (UTC)


 * 18th Arkansas Infantry Regiment (Carroll's)
 * Contains a link to a disambiguation page 21st Arkansas Infantry Regiment✅Aleutian06 (talk) 16:46, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * "literally decimated" means it lost 1 in 10. Is that what you mean? (I edited "literally melted away")


 * 18th Arkansas Infantry Regiment (Marmaduke's)
 * Contains links to a disambiguation page Battle of Dalton - but I think the May battle doesn't have its own page?


 * 19th Arkansas Infantry Regiment (Dawson's)
 * More links to Battle of Dalton
 * Under "surrender and consolidation" the (frightful) 1200/49 statistics are mentioned twice


 * 19th Arkansas Infantry Regiment (Dockery's)
 * Contains a link to a disambiguation page Battle of Corinth
 * Jame G. Johson - James G. Johnson perhaps?
 * The lead paragraph is confusing; the long final sentence doesn't seem to fit together


 * 22nd Arkansas Infantry Regiment
 * This one is confusing! I don't see the purpose of the second level headings.
 * The infobox has a unit flag, but the usual descriptive section is missing


 * 23rd Arkansas Infantry Regiment
 * At "where it was captured in July 1863", does "it" refer to Port Hudson, the 23rd itself, or the whole force whose components have just been listed?


 * 24th Arkansas Infantry Regiment
 * More links to Battle of Dalton


 * 27th Arkansas Infantry Regiment
 * Company F's commander is missing


 * 33rd Arkansas Infantry Regiment
 * Grinstead, Grindstead, or Grinsted? Once you've looked it up, do a Wikipedia search for "Hiram" plus the two incorrect spellings


 * 34th Arkansas Infantry Regiment
 * Contains a link to a disambiguation page 21st Arkansas Infantry Regiment
 * The quotation beginning "Some of the boys will remember" is not closed. Is it just that single sentence?


 * 36th Arkansas Infantry Regiment
 * "Emergancy" either needs a [sic] or correction to "Emergency"


 * 37th Arkansas Infantry Regiment
 * No list of companies?


 * 39th Arkansas Infantry Regiment
 * Cadwallader or Cadwalader Polk?
 * The sentence beginning "This redesignation causes more confusion because" is not complete


 * 45th Arkansas Infantry (Mounted)
 * The tail end of the sentence "There were four 45th soldiers captured on the same day..." is not clear to me


 * 46th Arkansas Infantry (Mounted)
 * I can't parse the sentence beginning "Several of these men were from Arkansas"; in particular the opening bracket before "including Captain Wiley C Jones" has no closing bracket. Where should it go?

Really!!!
I'm really sorry, I don't believe that I did it. I don't think that I did it!. Anyway thanks for cleaning up my mistake. /\ talk←  Aviyal  →Policy ) /\ 20:36, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * That one took me my surprise! What were you trying to do? -- John of Reading (talk) 20:41, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Userboxes
First, you have my deepest gratitude for responding. Second, I'm still a tad bit confused on how I can organise them. I won't post the source code itself (I don't want to clutter your talk page,) but if you visit http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Tharthan&action=edit , you can see it. If you are too busy, I understand. Tharthandorf Aquanashi (talk) 00:24, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I've tried out my  idea on your user page. What do you think? I've had to set the "height" parameter to 75px because one of the boxes is much deeper than the others. If you reworded that box to make it less deep, then the "height" could be reduced and there would be less white space around the others. -- John of Reading (talk) 07:06, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes. Thank you. Tharthandorf Aquanashi (talk) 18:26, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Too lazy to look up the patents, are you?
You don't mind listing the machine but you don't want the patent number or the signature on the patent identifying the inventor? What's your problem, Christian Censor? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.32.123.233 (talk) 22:32, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Not lazy, but busy in a different way. My main work at Wikipedia is fixing spelling mistakes. I do this in about 5,000 articles a month, spending 15-30 seconds or so on each article. So, yes, I did not stop to identify any missing patent numbers when I made this edit. I don't understand the term "censor" in your post here, since I did not remove any information from the article. -- John of Reading (talk) 06:51, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Not lazy, but busy in a different way. My main work at Wikipedia is fixing spelling mistakes. I do this in about 5,000 articles a month, spending 15-30 seconds or so on each article. So, yes, I did not stop to identify any missing patent numbers when I made this edit. I don't understand the term "censor" in your post here, since I did not remove any information from the article. -- John of Reading (talk) 06:51, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Move the references
I'm curious about this. Why move a reference like that? Does it have a purpose? I would have thought that the references should be in the same order as the items they are referencing. Cheers. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 21:06, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * This is one of the AWB "General fixes" and is described here. The aim, I think, is just to make the article neater, putting the references into numeric order. The assumption is that if different references are needed to verify different parts of the sentence, they will be placed where they are relevant. I have done this at Cambridge Bay with this edit.
 * I remember this general fix being debated at great length in the past, but I don't recall it being queried recently. You are the first person to ask me about it, in two years and 100K AWB edits. -- John of Reading (talk) 21:32, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * (I'm off to bed now) -- John of Reading (talk) 21:33, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. That's what I was looking for. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 21:44, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing infobox images
I just wanted to thank you for fixing some images I added to the infoboxes at Casper Ware and Dan Monson. I saw there was an error and tried a lot of different formatting but it didn't seem to work. I see what you did now and that will help me going forward. Thanks, 72Dino (talk) 15:54, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It's a pity that the Picture tutorial doesn't explain it. It's also confusing that some infoboxes must have the word "File:" and the extra brackets and some must not. -- John of Reading (talk) 15:57, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Robotics portal news and related portals
Hi

I was just updating the Robotics news when I noticed that you had hidden it - I have restored it. I am grateful for your efforts to clean up the portal page, but as I have no knowledge of how to make the boxes display in the correct column and sizes (and my attempts at moving them around di nothing but make everything go all over the place), I need your help :¬)

The related portals is indeed much better as a non-full width, so can you move it to the left column please? If possible the images and text can be reduced to make them fit into one line, though I am reluctant to do anything until I can see how it looks on the left. The news can stay where it is for now I think.

Many thanks Chaosdruid (talk) 00:01, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ and full marks to you for updating the news box. -- John of Reading (talk) 06:31, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your help - Is there somewhere I can go to find a guide on how to use the coding on that page?
 * The news box did take a while, but it was worth it - I will try and update it once a week now to keep it up to date.
 * I have done a lot of work on the Robotics project 2000+ articles. Mainly to get the ??? assessed re class and importance, as well as redefining and expanding the categories (helped by 2 other editors). Then I concentrated on updating and expanding as many articles as I could, while the other editors went about creating cats and new articles. The portal was the last thing to get done.
 * After I have updated the featured articles and robots, there will only be the newsletter to do and then we can get down to reassessing all the articles. It has been a long task, the first set of ??? assessments took almost a year, the second round of improvements to articles and the project pages another year as I also tried to concentrate on the GOCE project to learn more Wikistuff, but we are nearly there now! Once the project and portal are finally up-to-date we can try and get some more active members, which I hope will greatly help with article improvements. Chaosdruid (talk) 19:15, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * A big project!
 * Portal pages are tricky. The nearest thing we have to a coding guide is . If you're just moving boxes around, it shouldn't be too bad. Each box is made either by a single template or by a group of three lines that generate the header, the content subpage, and the footer. So to move, say, the wikiprojects box into the left column below the selected picture, you'd grab three lines and move them below the "Random portal component" line that talks about pictures.
 * Mixed in with those template calls are some magic HTML "divs" to carve the available space into a wider column and a narrower column - I've added comments to label those - and you should take care not to damage them. The robotics portal has more magic at the top - which I don't understand - that creates the grey background. -- John of Reading (talk) 19:43, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the info, and for the hidden notes :¬)
 * The magic portal grey-backgound is the first line in the page, though I don't understand how it works, I know that changing the parameters in there changes the page-background. Chaosdruid (talk) 14:27, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Help us develop better software!
Thanks to all of you for commenting on the NOINDEX RfC :). It's always great to be able to field questions like these to the community; it's genuinely the highlight of my work! The NOINDEX idea sprung from our New Page Triage discussion; we're developing a new patrolling interface for new articles, and we want your input like never before :). So if you haven't already seen it, please go there, take a look at the screenshots and mockups and ideas, and add any comments or suggestions you might have to the talkpage. Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 16:48, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Article of Tom Cruise
Why did you remove the new picture of Tom Cruise ?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Napsync (talk • contribs) 15:46, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I put the old picture back because the new one had been deleted. Here's the log from Wikimedia Commons: Log. -- John of Reading (talk) 15:51, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I put the old picture back because the new one had been deleted. Here's the log from Wikimedia Commons: Log. -- John of Reading (talk) 15:51, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Chhattisgarh
Could you try Chhattisgarh with AWB typos, for some reason I can't get an amendment to save. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 17:49, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
 * This edit worked. No idea! -- John of Reading (talk) 18:32, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks
John

Just wanted to say thanks again for all your help with Book:History of the 39th Infantry Division. We had a reunion this weekend and the books were a great hit. I obtained several corrections and new information and I still have a lot of refrenceing to cover, so it can be event better next year, but your work made a bunch of old vets very happy, thanks! Aleutian06 (talk) 21:16, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the Welcome!
I started my account back in 2006, but I haven't really done much in the way of editing. Now I get to make up for over five years of read-only searching. By the way, if someone writes on your Talk, do you reply on your Talk, or do you reply on the sending user's Talk? I should probably go through the links you sent, as there's a lot to learn.

Amarand (talk) 15:11, 13 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi! I like to keep conversations in one place, so since you've asked a question here I will post my reply here. Then anyone else who drops by will be able to make sense of what we've said. Other editors do it differently, though. And thanks for the tea. -- John of Reading (talk) 18:27, 15 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Is there a decent set of semi-automated typo finders, or something that pulls up a list of commonly misused/misspelled words that I can go through? Or is it best when on typo-patrol to simply read articles, or read the latest updates?  Amarand (talk) 18:39, 16 April 2012 (UTC)


 * You could use some of the searches listed at Lists of common misspellings; or, if you find a particular misspelling in an article, you could try searching for other articles with the same mistake. -- John of Reading (talk) 18:42, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Soft hyphens
I started a discussion about them here, which may be of some interest to you. Shadowjams (talk) 07:55, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I'll keep an eye on it. If there are some legitimate uses then it will be hard to come up with a workaround in the typo fixer. -- John of Reading (talk) 08:42, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * As far as I can tell the only useful purpose is to gracefully hyphenate extremely long words that are likely to wrap badly. If a word is, say half the column width (which we don't know because everyone's browser may be different, but we can assume around 80 characters) then it won't wrap gracefully, so this may be an instance where "newspaper" style hyphenation may be appropriate. In my survey of the last database dump, I found that use to be extremely rare, although it was in place on a few articles. Shadowjams (talk) 23:26, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Dead link
Hi. Do you usually check external ref links before you add them? One you just added here, viz. http://www.stonyhurst.ac.uk/article_775.shtml|date=20071109101913 does not seem to work. Incidentally, I find the use of multiple ref names in that article (as listed under 'References' in the Edit window) to be absurdly repetitive and complex. Surely this is not a common practice in Wikipedia--what say you? Also, e.g., ref name="Stony 1" (with quotes) is matched in the article text with ref name=Stony 1 (without quotes). Does this not create difficulties, or do the quotes not operate in the code? Cheers, Bjenks (talk) 14:41, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The extra URL is actually http://web.archive.org/web/20071109101913/http://www.stonyhurst.ac.uk/article_775.shtml and not the one you have posted here. The template glues together a working URL from the parameters given to it. Try clicking on the "Archived" link when displaying the article, rather than copying the parameters from the  template into your browser.


 * Re-using named references is standard, and I have no problems with it. I agree that it is confusing that the software does not distinguish spaces and underscores in reference names. This is related to the same limitation in article names: Main Page and Main_Page both go to the same place. -- John of Reading (talk) 14:59, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

The article "the" -
If your recent article reversions to the Portal Biography were generated by computer software, which I suspect, would you know what authoritative source or sources such software was developed around? Knowing this might help me in future edits. Thank you. Pendright (talk) 20:38, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Do you mean this edit? I didn't use any computer software to analyse the text; it was just my judgement that the grammar was better without those three instances of "the". I'd have trouble explaining it, though. It seems to me that "The biographical works..." would have to refer back to some works already mentioned, whereas "Biographical works..." introduces a general statement.


 * Compare "Strawberry jam is made from strawberries and sugar" with "Today I made several kinds of jam - the strawberry jam turned out very well". The first sentence is a general statement and needs no "the", but the second refers to a specific example of strawberry jam and needs a "the". -- John of Reading (talk) 20:57, 19 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I apologize for assuming that the changes you made were computer generated. I decided on “the” by what I considered a reasoned approach, whether correct or incorrect.  So for whatever it ‘s worth, here it is.


 * The Chicago Manual of style states an article is a limiting adjective that precedes a noun or noun phrase to determine something definite or indefinite. The Grammar Bible states a noun phrase is a word or group of words that consist of a single noun or noun and a number of optional modifiers.  The Chicago Manual of Style goes on to say the definite article may precede a singular or plural noun. And that the definite article points to a definite object that (1) is so well understood that it does not need description: (2) is a thing that is about to be described; (3) is important.


 * I hung my hat on number (2). The words thing and described are broadly defined. And because biographical works and biographical coverage are both noun phrases, I arrived at definite. But I agree, readability is better without “the.” Pendright (talk) 22:12, 20 April 2012 (UTC)


 * That makes it sound very complicated! I go for readability every time. If in doubt, read the sentence aloud. -- John of Reading (talk) 08:09, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I have a hunch my welcome with you is about worn out. Nevertheless, I believe your last post invites some sort of reply.


 * For my part, grammar is complicated. It has many rules, as you know. Yet, readability does remain the bottom line.  To read written work aloud is always helpful.  But, one must still have some grasp of grammar to make a so-called readability judgment.  Readability alone may or may not make written work grammatically acceptable. Pendright (talk) 23:38, 21 April 2012 (UTC)


 * What do your style guides say about omitting the definite article? My point is touched on at English articles, but I don't possess any books on formal English grammar. -- John of Reading (talk) 09:48, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

1999
Sorry. I realised I must have done something wrong but I was on my lunch break and didn't have time to fix it. Deb (talk) 17:28, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * No problem! -- John of Reading (talk) 17:30, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Todo and new question
Thanks for removing that 'todo' problem! I put a new one on the discussion for you to read. Which leads to my second question... how does AWB know how to respond to British English so well, yet didn't correct to British English on 'manoeuvrable'? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 07:00, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The rules have to be carefully written so they don't favo(u)r one variant over the other. I'll have a look at the "manoeuvrable" rule later if no-one else gets round to it. -- John of Reading (talk) 08:17, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I do not know how to correct it so your option right now is good. When I reload AWB it grabs the new list automatically right? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:32, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's right, it loads the list every time when it starts up. There's also a "Refresh typos" option on the "File" menu, but you should never need to use it. -- John of Reading (talk) 14:36, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry to continue to bug you about it, but I keep having 'well-known' get changed to 'well known'. Do we have a preferred option for this, the article wasn't in British English, but American English. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:58, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
 * By all means continue to bug me. For "well known" see Wikipedia talk:AutoWikiBrowser/Typos/Archive 3, where a bunch of the project's best typo-fixers agree that the rule has been written correctly, making changes only where it is appropriate. This is one that I've been taking on trust, because I haven't taken the time to understand that discussion. -- John of Reading (talk) 15:03, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh wonderful. I'm going to guess it is the same with 're-name' to 'rename' then because even the UK variant is 'rename'. Feel kinda silly about the matter after doing 5000 typo corrections, but I just wanted to be sure that I've been doing it right so far! ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:12, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Tennessee class cruiser
Thanks for going through this article, especially since I am not an HTML programmer and am therefore clueless as to the SFN thing. Two questions, though: why include the date with citations and why ref=harv for sources listed in the bibliography? Jonyungk (talk) 12:34, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
 * There's a short explanation at Template:Sfn and a longer explanation at Help:Shortened footnotes. Roughly, the template adds a link to the web page, telling the web browser - "when the reader clicks on 'Bloggs 2007', please scroll down to the label named CITEREFBloggs2007"; and the "ref=harv" tells  to do the extra work of creating the label from the given author(s) and publication year.


 * If the links don't tie up, then the software puts the article into Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting, which is why I turned up to fix it. -- John of Reading (talk) 12:44, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Omitting the definite article
I do have a number of grammar books. And they all deal with the subject of articles, but only the following deal, in some way, with the subject of omitting articles.

The Chicago Manual of Style (15th edition) says this about omitting articles: The absence of an article may alter a sentence’s meaning—for example, the meaning of the news brought us little comfort (we weren’t comforted) changes if a is inserted before little: the news brought us a little comfort (we felt somewhat comforted).

The Chicago Manual of Style: Some usages call for a zero article, an article implicitly present, usually before a mass or plural noun  (although both new and washed bottles are stacked nearby, cider is poured into new bottles only) (the is implicit before new bottles).

A Grammar Book For You And Me has this to say about omitting articles: Often you will generalize about plural nouns. When you do, the indefinite articles a and an are not available to show that you’re generalizing. So to show generality with plural nouns, you omit the definite article the. Thus, you’ll say you enjoy books or that you prefer raisins, not apricots.

English articles. Overall, it’s a much better resource on the subject. Even though the Chicago Manual of Style is considered one of the premier books on grammar.

Finally, back to your question: “ What do your style guides say about omitting the definite article?” Nothing more than you already knew. In researching a passel of reference material, it would appear that no one-reference source covers the same material in the same way. Leaving us, as I see it, to our own devices. Perhaps, Wikipedia might consider developing its own standards on articles. The use of good grammar is important, but Wikipedia readers deserve clear and concise writing. So, we’ve come full circle. Because readability still seems like the best option, using articles, lets say, in ways that actually improve text. I apologize for wasting your time, but thank you for your patience and civility. Pendright (talk) 22:32, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I rarely get involved in style issues, so I'm unlikely to be querying any of your other edits. Happy editing! -- John of Reading (talk) 09:20, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Abby Hagyard
Dear Editor:

Thank you for contacting me and providing this forum to explain the reasons behind the changes made to the Abby Hagyard content.

It is my understanding that updated and accurate information is welcomed by Wikipedia.

Far from representing a conflict of interest, the changes made to the Abby Hagyard content were meant to correct factual errors and fill in substantial gaps.

Abby's father served in the Royal Canadian Air Force. The nature of this career prompted postings all across Canada and Europe before he retired and took up residence Coral Gables, Florida with his wife and daughter, Abby. Although Abby was born in Edmonton, Alberta, she only lived there for 6 months and has never returned. By contrast, Abby has lived in Ottawa, Ontario for more than 30 years and it is for this reason that she considers Ottawa her home town.

Abby did not attend university in Edmonton, Alberta. She attended college in Miami, Florida Miami-Dade Junior College and returned to her home town of Ottawa, Ontario to continue her education St. Patrick's College, Carleton University.

Abby Hagyard never held the professional designation of "comedienne". Her professional designation A.C.T.R.A. is Performer. She has performed dramatic, comedic, host, narrator and cartoon voice roles.

Abby also worked in the professional theater, appearing in Equity performances of Shirley Valentine, Talking With, It Had To Be You, and Love Letters. She wrote and produced more than twenty stage plays, all of them receiving reviews by radio CBC and newspaper Ottawa Citizen, Winnipeg Free Press and Vancouver Sun critics. During this period, Abby won A.C.T.R.A. awards for her work in Television (performer) and won multiple E.O.D.L. and Best of Fringe awards for her work in the Theater (writer, producer, actress).

Abby never toured Eastern Canada with her original stage shows. She toured Central and Western Canada, playing in Ottawa and Kingston, Ontario; Winnipeg, Manitoba; and Vancouver, British Columbia.

Since 2004, she has worked exclusively as a business innovations consultant.

Abby's business entity is Now What? Strategies, Inc. She has been working with clients in England, Norway, the United States and Canada since 2004.

Two references were deleted because the original Wikipedia contributor either failed to do complete research or chose to omit follow-up press clippings pertinent to the story. Selecting some but not all of the clippings misrepresented the facts.

While there WAS a court proceeding to investigate a start-up dinner theater venture that failed to open, it was proven in court that Abby Hagyard had acted in good faith, on the advice of her lawyer. It was also proven that Abby had personally ensured that all monies received were reimbursed when the business venture was abandoned - nearly a year before an investigation began. It was further proven that a disgruntled ticket buyer had precipitated the investigation by falsely accusing Abby Hagyard of taking his money and failing to return it. It was proven in court that he had actually been one of the first ticket buyers to be reimbursed.

Because Abby Hagyard was a high profile individual, this case received extensive coverage by print, radio and television media. All of the facts were covered by the media at the time, yet it was only the negative clippings that were included in the original Wikipedia article. Rather than belabor a moot case, the two references were simply deleted.

(April 28, 2012 Abby Hagyard} — Preceding unsigned comment added by AbbyLynHagyard (talk • contribs) 12:34, 28 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you for posting here. I'll be busy tomorrow but will have a closer look at the article and its sources on Monday. -- John of Reading (talk) 21:32, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for posting here. I'll be busy tomorrow but will have a closer look at the article and its sources on Monday. -- John of Reading (talk) 21:32, 28 April 2012 (UTC)


 * (More) I have edited the article and written an explanation at Talk:Abby Hagyard. Please review Autobiography and especially the section headed "If Wikipedia already has an article about you". -- John of Reading (talk) 10:15, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for help. By the way, is the language acceptable? Maksymilian Sielicki (talk) 11:04, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes! I found a couple of typos, but the grammar and tone looks fine to me. -- John of Reading (talk) 11:08, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

William Genovese hoax
This user "Genovese99" could be the same user as "THExDOPExSHOW" (past edit view. --Vic49 (talk)  15:17, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * ...and has registered just after  got blocked for a week - see this ANI thread. I hate to get involved at ANI, but I'll alert User talk:JohnCD about your message here. -- John of Reading (talk) 16:59, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Re:Deaths of ordinary people
That's fine, but since the death of Adam Yauch is now mentioned by WP:ITN I think that should go back in. Paul MacDermott (talk) 13:16, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Fine, I don't have strong views on it. -- John of Reading (talk) 13:17, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * ok, I agree about Lloyd Brevett though. Not entirely sure why he was added. Paul MacDermott (talk) 13:26, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the help
Hi John Thanks for the help with the photo placement and means of contacting other users. It really is its own little world in here and it could take me years to get the hang of some of the systems in place. Anyway, thanks again. Champion Blue (talk) 06:56, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, there's a lot here behind the scenes. Do feel free to ask more questions, either here or at one of the help desks. -- John of Reading (talk) 06:59, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Making specific link boxes
Hello JoR! It's been a while since I've been on here to ask of your assistance with anything, and I just wanted to know if I could ask you of another one. I'm currently working to improve the New Spain portal and articles within the subject, and thought of making a link similar to this for it:

Do you know exactly where and/or how to make one similar to this? If so, it would be greatly appreciated. And thanks for readingLeftAire (talk) 03:07, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * These are called "templates", and you can read about them at Help:Template. The one you've displayed here is defined at Template:History of Great Britain. If you follow that link you're at the template definition page; if you then click "Edit" at the top you'll see the coding. This one is quite straightforward, as it merely passes some links into another template, Country history, which does the hard work of getting the box formatted. There's some documentation at Template:Country history to tell you how to use it.
 * So if you're aiming to type  into articles, then click this red link - Template:History of New Spain - and then copy and adapt the coding from Template:History of Great Britain until the preview looks right. Then save, and it should then work for you.
 * If you can't make it work, save it anyway and post back here so that I can have a look at it. -- John of Reading (talk) 07:12, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Many thanks for assisting me once more! I've gotten into a nice routine and now it's effortless! LeftAire (talk) 19:14, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you
Just came to thank you for telling me how to get Mcdonalds username. Thanks again. — Mcdonalds  (talk · cont ), at 17:28, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm glad that worked out. Welcome to the English Wikipedia! -- John of Reading (talk) 18:31, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Bulleted list items
As part of this edit, you replaced * Bulleted list item with *Bulleted list item. That is to say, you deleted a load of spaces. There is no point in doing this as long as the built-in Wikipedia editor includes such spaces. To see it doing this, edit something by hitting "Edit", and then hit the bulleted (unordered) list button. (If you wish to respond, please do so here.) HairyWombat 22:24, 16 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I can't see which part of the diff you are referring to - can you give the text of a bulleted list item where AWB adjusted the space between the asterisk and the following text?
 * I only see the edit removing the redundant spaces from the end of the lines, and in five cases adjusting the spacing before or after the "ref" tags. These are part of AWB's "minor general fixes". It wouldn't be worth saving an edit to make only those changes, but since I was saving an edit anyway to fix some typos, I ticked the box to allow the software to make the general fixes at the same time. -- John of Reading (talk) 06:42, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

That is all I see. Please ignore my ramblings; I didn't look closely enough. HairyWombat 14:06, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * No problem! -- John of Reading (talk) 20:27, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Infobox Edits
Hi John,

I sent this question to Michael Lynch a few days ago, and he suggested that I contact you (he is on a Wikipedia break at this time).

Full disclosure: I work as a consultant for Brailsford & Dunlavey, a company based in Washington, DC. Recently I've noticed a lot of firms we work with and compete against are listed throughout Wikipedia for facility projects they have designed, managed, etc. They are listed in Infoboxes on facility pages like this one:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bank_of_Kentucky_Center

My question is, Is it possible to add a new header like "Programmer" or "Planner" to the Infobox on this and other pages? B&D is not an architect or an engineer or a contractor. B&D is a project manager (which we have tagged on a few projects). But most of the time, B&D is a planner/programmer, conducting feasibility studies and financial analyses and crafting architectural programs (room-by-room descriptions of how the space should be designed), which then are handed off to the implementation team. There are hundreds/thousands of planners/programmers that shape brick-and-mortar projects, but which currently do not seem to be "taggable" in Infoboxes.

Let me know if such a tag already exists. And if it doesn't, would the Wikipedia community find it useful enough to merit adding?

Sincerely,

B.J. Rudell

Hi John, sorry not to put in a new Subject for my message directly above. Thanks in advance for your insights/suggestions.

Sincerely,

-BJ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bjrudell (talk • contribs) 12:10, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I've fixed the heading, and will give you a proper reply tomorrow. Sundays are busy! -- John of Reading (talk) 16:12, 20 May 2012 (UTC)


 * (More) First some unrelated comments.


 * Thank you for disclosing your role, both here and at the help desk. It would also be appropriate to make the disclosure on your "user page", User:Bjrudell. That's currently a red link because the page hasn't been created yet. You can access that page by clicking on your user name at the very top of every page whenever you are logged in.
 * The edits you've made so far, adding B&D as the project manager, have added links to the B&D home page. That makes it harder for readers to check that the information is true, because they have to work out how to use your web site to navigate to the relevant project. With a Google search I found this B&D sub-page specifically about the Ryan Center; that would be a better link to include in the Ryan Center article.
 * The edits you've made so far have added "Bare URLs", so that the Wikipedia article displays only the URL down in the "references" section. These are ugly, especially when the URL is long. I recommend that you use the cite web template to format the reference nicely. Compare this reference with this one.


 * That second reference is keyed as follows:.


 * That's the technical stuff, but none of that helps you with your real question. You were advised at the help desk to begin a discussion on the talk page of the Infobox stadium template, and I agree with that. A discussion there will be seen by the editors most interested in this topic area. Go to Template talk:Infobox stadium and click the "New section" button at the top.
 * Personally I'd prefer not to see this role added. The template already provides for several main roles, and I am sure there are hundreds more companies who played a part in the construction of these facilities and would love to see their company mentioned in the Wikipedia articles. -- John of Reading (talk) 08:44, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Possible bug in empty plant "talk" pages
Hi.

As you know, I recently wanted to explain on the talk page of "Centaurea Montana" why I had made an edit, but was unable to find a way to do so, so I went to Plant Portal (where the talk page directed me) and explained there. You were kind enough to copy the explanation to the C. Montana talk page, and now I see an "edit" link there.

The problem was, that when I origanally went to try and put the explanation on the talk page, there was nothing there except the Plant Portal box. There was no "edit" link, and no other obvious way to add my explanation.

THere IS, as I say, NOW an "edit" link on C. Montana's talk page.

However, if you go to the talk page for the similar flower Centaurea triumfettii, ("http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Centaurea_triumfettii"), as a regular user, you will see no way to edit - no way to add the first comment.

If there IS a way to do so, and I am just not seeing it, please tell me, so that I won't make this mistake in the future.

However, if I am right, and there is no way to add the first comment (at least on one of these Plant-portal-related sites), then I would say there is a bug.

You apparently don't have the problem I had (as you were able to add my explanation to the page), but you seem to be an editor, or Super-User, or something, so you may not be aware of the bug (if it is one).

I just thought you might want to know, in case something needed to be fixed.

--- UPDATE: Just for fun, I tried clicking on the "edit" button at the top of the C. triumfettii talk page, and it started up an edit of the talk page. Surprise!!! Since I only saw one "edit" button up there, I assumed that button was for editing the Article, not the current page. To me, this is non-obvious. Perhaps the Edit button text could vary based on location, so that if one were on the article, it would say "Edit Article", and when on a talk page it would say "Edit Talk", or some such... Sorry to be such a dum-dum (if such I be)...

-scott092707 Scott092707 (talk) 20:22, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It's not obvious is it? The Read/Edit/New section/View history tabs apply to the article page if you are looking at the article or its history, and to the talk page if you are looking at the talk page or it's history. (I'm not any kind of super-user, by the way, though I admit I've made a lot of edits) -- John of Reading (talk) 07:33, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Actually
The "careful wording" was actually referring to counting ABC 2000 as part of the number of years Dick Clark had hosted things on a certain day of the year. ViperSnake151  Talk  15:13, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * That's one more done then. 1400 to go... -- John of Reading (talk) 16:09, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Charles Handley-Read
Not sure what you mean by "needs a check with the book". I have the book in front of me now, as I did when I wrote the article, and it is an accurate quote, properly cited. Can you let me know what else you think is required. KJP1 (talk) 20:57, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * If the book really misspells the word "brilliance" as "brillance", then replace  with , which displays as brillance [sic]. Readers will then be assured that the mistake is in the original, and is not Wikipedia's error. Or does the context in the book show that the author meant to use the French spelling? -- John of Reading (talk) 05:49, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah! I now see what you mean.  My apologies and thanks.  Shall now go and change it.  KJP1 (talk) 06:13, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

More on wrapping
I don't want to belabor this on the help desk, partly because when it od pointed out what I did wrong, I will be mortified, but I just added an image and a little text to 1983 NCAA Women's Division I Basketball Tournament in the Bids by state section. I am sure I am using "none" not "one" but if I remove the clear, it will wrap. Do you see what I'm doing wrong?-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  21:41, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * You've included both "left" and "none", whereas the example in the tutorial only has "none". At Extended image syntax these are listed in a section with four options: left/right/center/none. By experiment, if you include more than one of these options then only the first has any effect.
 * I'm sure the developers thought this made sense at the time... -- John of Reading (talk) 05:58, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Minor Barnstar awarded

 * Thank you! -- John of Reading (talk) 08:16, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

One last issue with multiple authors in footnotes
If one uses two books in a single footnote (as I am doing in an article I plan to make), it appears that the multiple authors technique doesn't work the same way as you've done it. To give an example I've uploaded what I've written of the article thus far: User:Ismail/sandbox (the "Pano 1968, p. 86; Omari 1988, p. 82." portion, which should read Omari & Pollo.) --Ismail (talk) 11:11, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I think I've fixed it. The rules for are slightly different. -- John of Reading (talk) 12:30, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the FAQ
Thanks for the FAQ on the Article Feedback system, John! Neutr8 (talk) 07:45, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Re:Current Events
I did read the guidelines before I edited the page/template. However, the sentence will be grammatically incorrect if "kill" was used instead of "killed". Just because a single word in the past tense is used, it doesn't make the sentence as a whole to past tense. Take for example, the last point of "Topics in the news" on Portal:Current Events. A word in the past tense is used but the sentence is in present tense, since the word "are" is used. However, since there is no word that makes the sentence clearly in present, the sentence can be rephrased as: "At least 62 people are killed as a result of a series of car bombings in the Iraqi cities of Baghdad and Hillah." Is it okay to go ahead and make the change? Thanks and Regards, Darylgolden (talk) 11:23, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * You are quite right. With your change undone, it says "A series ... kill at least 62 people...", and this is a grammar error. Either "kill" should be "kills" (it's just one series), or your rewording would be fine. Thank you for your efforts at improving the clarity of the current events page. -- John of Reading (talk) 11:52, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

AWB
Following on from Wikipedia_talk:AutoWikiBrowser, I've downloaded the AWB sources - I've been meaning to do that for ages - and found the line of code that hides the password. With this line of code removed, the "Edit Profile" dialog displays the saved password. So if you send me an email, I can send you a WikiFunctions.dll that will solve your problem. Of course, that requires some trust on your part since I could have added all sorts of nasty code to it... -- John of Reading (talk) 15:53, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm willing to give it a shot : )
 * I have emailed enabled, so please send me a message so we can get the ball rolling : ) - jc37 16:52, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Done. -- John of Reading (talk) 20:46, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Also done : ) - Jc377 (talk) 15:03, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Barnstar!

 * Welcome back, Jc377! -- John of Reading (talk) 15:05, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Lol thanks : )
 * (Oh wait, wrong account - I'd make a lousy sock puppeteer lol). - jc37 15:21, 18 June 2012 (UTC)