User talk:Jonesey95/Archive3

Elected!
Hi there. You da boss now! I hope you enjoy it as much as I did. Happy New Year! --Stfg (talk) 00:02, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I know I'm late to the party, but congratulations! I'm sure you'll do well. The Utahraptor Talk/Contribs 05:31, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks to both of you. I appreciate all of your contributions, both past and future. I stand on the shoulders of giants. – Jonesey95 (talk) 06:52, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Refs
Please do not shorten the refs like you did here again without clear consensus. Thanks Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 14:27, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I do not shorten refs like this without clear consensus or arbitrarily. There is clear consensus that citations should be formatted consistently. I made the citation formatting much more consistent (e.g. adding and correcting doi and pmid values, adding titles to citations with raw URLs, adding many links to pmid and other identifiers, and making author name formatting match more consistently from citation to citation) and in the process eliminated many citation errors. Before my edits, the article contained 32 CS1 citation errors. After my edits, the article contained just three CS1 citation errors, each of which was not yet flagged by a red error message (the edit was completed in October; the messages were added to the CS1 module in November).


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

WP:GOCE 2014
Congratulations on becoming the new lead! I've been working on the annual report for 2013 here. The bottom section is for you as incoming lead coordinator to fill in with your plans for the upcoming year. You can take a look at the last two years (2012 and 2011) to get an idea of what goes in there, or just say whatever you want. You can also fill in the rest of the details in the other sections if you want. I am working down from the top, so you could start at the bottom and move up. —Torchiest talkedits 16:03, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Congratulations! Mat  ty  .  007  16:09, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Recent edit to Robert Dutton
Hey Jonesey95,

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


 * "%7c" is a substitute for the "|" character (sometimes called a pipe or vertical bar). When a URL containing "|" is included in a Wikipedia cite template like cite web, the template interprets the "|" as "alert: here comes a new template parameter" (e.g. "title" or "author"). So a URL like, which is perfectly valid, looks like this in a cite web template (note that the end of the URL is cut off and the text at the end of the URL generates errors as well):




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




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


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

Please check references for James Bryce, 1st Viscount Bryce and Arnold Lupton
hi there Could you pleaes check referencing for 2 pages James Bryce, 1st viscount Bryce and Arnold Lupton - Cheers and thanks Mike — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.180.74.196 (talk) 11:27, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I cleaned up a few references in these two articles. Here are some tips for your future editing:
 * last and first are used to indicate the last name and first name of the author, respectively. title is for the title of the article, web page, or other work within a larger work. work is for the larger work within which the article is contained. See the documentation for cite web for more information.
 * Citations, ideally, should be formatted consistently from one citation to the next. You will find many articles in which this is not the case, but that's the ideal. For example, if all of the existing citations use the date format "12 January 2014", any citations that are added should use the same date format. See WP:CITEVAR for more information.
 * When you want to add a note to a Talk page, click the "New Section" link at the top of the page. Enter a brief title for your new section, then add your text in the big text field. When you are done writing, add four tildes ( ~ ) to the end of the text. That will sign the text with your user name and the current date and time.
 * You might want to sign up for a user name and password so that you can participate more fully. Let me know if you need help with that.
 * Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia. It looks like you are on your way to being a constructive Wikipedia editor. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:09, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

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

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

Have gone through rest of links. So grateful your help. I will now go through all recent articles to make sure I do links properly. Weglinde (talk) 19:35, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Good work. I fixed a few remaining references where there were line breaks within the references. If you want to be extra careful, click on each of the links in the references to see if they take you to the right location. You may need to delete the period "." at the end of the web address. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:17, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

I... I feel I can talk to you about this...
Honestly, Jonesey, am I being an asshole here? User_talk:EEng This guy's been on my case for months. Talk:Phineas_Gage

BTW, I didn't notice your edit summary the very model of a modern emigrantical until later -- precious! EEng (talk) 04:53, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Since you asked, my opinion: You're both poking and prodding each other and not taking a step back to see if you're here to build an encyclopedia or here for some other reason. My advice to each of you (although only one of you asked) is to take a step back, put away your sword, and read Humor from cover to cover. It's an age-old chestnut on the internet that humor, especially the various varieites of clever, sophisticated wit, is difficult to convey in writing. One man's humor is another man's personal attack.


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


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



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

Citation bot
Hi,

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

Martin  (Smith609 – Talk)  08:15, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
 * , I appreciate the thanks. I enjoy finding bugs and seeing them fixed, and I find Citation Bot to be a very useful tool. I worry that others will not be so tolerant of its quirks and will want to block it, as they have in the past.


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


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

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

Stalking A930913's talk page
I saw you answering a couple of requests about BracketBot issues on A930913's talk page. Thanks for your help! When you resolve a request so that A930913 doesn't need to take a look, please also edit the  part and change "no" into "yes". That will not only add the "resolved" box, but also mark the section for extra-speedy archival so they won't clutter the talk page (otherwise these sections are set not to be archived for the next ten years or so). Huon (talk) 02:01, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I remember to do this sometimes, but since the code is hidden, I forget to remember it. I'll see if I can remember in the future. I wouldn't want those things to lie around for ten years.... – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:23, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Merging articles
Flushed with success (?) in merging Sea star wasting syndrome into Starfish wasting disease I tackled a more difficult proposition. I merged Gorilla gorilla diehli into Cross River gorilla. That is to say I went through the procedure as outlined in the |merger instructions. I basically copied most of the source article into the recipient and there is bound to be quite a bit of duplication and superfluous information. I see you thought some of the source article was a copyright violation so if you feel like helping out in trimming the merged article into shape you would be welcome. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:22, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, . The GGd article was created over a redirect by students in an academic course. The students added useful information, and they were getting a grade for the project, so I didn't want to bite them and the useful information by simply reverting it. Nice work with the merge. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:32, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Essay wp:Autofixing_cites
User:Wikid77 here. I have written more Lua script to autofix (auto-correct) typos when using the wp:CS1 cite templates. When I helped to develop those Lua-based cite templates, during October 2012 to April 2013, the intent was to auto-correct for many typos, not show numerous error messages, and I never imagined Lua would be used to issue thousands of red-error messages when simple auto-correction would have been quite easy. Well, after waiting all year, I have returned to re-focus on autofixing typos in cite templates, and suppress most of the red-error messages. Across Wikipedia editing, many editors are just too busy to nitpick the details and so, autofixing of cite parameters provides a rapid way to solve the problems and make many cite templates almost trivial to use. Last year, I estimated the hand-correction of cites to require over 3 years of manual, hand-crafted edits, and now after another whole year, the backlog is still about 3-5 years if hand-fixed. Although several users are diligently hand-editing the pages to fix cites, many other users are actively inserting invalid cite parameters into almost as many dozens of pages each week. The past year (of tedious cite work) has proven how autofixing is the only hope to rapidly correct the 10,000 pages in the backlog categories. For example:
 * Category:Pages_with_citations_using_unsupported_parameters (pages: 0)

During early 2014, the unsupported parameters have been fixed at only 100-200 pages per month, as meaning more years of backlog work. I wrote new essay, "wp:Autofixing cites" to explain some simple ways to autofix the major cite parameters and hope people might discuss issues about the autofixing in the talk-page there, "WT:Autofixing cites" where all the complex tactics of fixing URLs and dates could be discussed, in more detail. -Wikid77 (talk) 22:02, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for laying this out. I will respond at the Talk page for the essay. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:45, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Wow
Thanks for correcting my typos. What's really pathetic is that I made the same error twice! :p Must have some funny idiosyncrasy when it comes to typing the work "public", or autocorrect did something wonky. Needless to say, THANK YOU! -- Another Believer ( Talk ) 16:50, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I thought you'd like that. I've always thought that "pubic" should be underlined in red by any respectable automated spell-checker. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:43, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
 * … I really don't wish to see a list of pubic art. -- Another Believer  ( Talk ) 23:08, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Rakesh Biswas page
[moved from Jonesey95 User page:] The matter provided for Mr Rakesh Biswas is genuine and have reference material .Mr Biswas is a famous personality of india, as he is youth icon for us. so kindly due to his respect make his page correct for his followers and researchers. thnks - unsigned addition by 106.219.56.63, 19:10, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
 * All I did was get the page moved from Category space to article space. You should post your concerns at Articles for deletion/Rakesh Biswas. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:22, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Repost of The Yellow Wallpaper (film)
Is there something wrong in a typo or something on this page? It says on your profile you mostly delete for typos, but not sure where the typo is. The page fits every guideline for Wikipedia article, and the article is not the same as the original article, but has been amended. Do you know how to fix what is wrong? You are suggesting speedy deletion, but not sure why. Thanks! Atafirst (talk) 03:10, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * All I did was fix a syntax error in one of the citations. I did not suggest speedy deletion. As you can see in the article's history, that deletion tag was placed by . The previous discussion is at Articles_for_deletion/The_Yellow_Wallpaper_(film). You did the right thing by clicking the "Contest this deletion" button and posting on the Talk page. An editor should respond to you there with an explanation of why the article is proposed for deletion.


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

Tree
Jonesey, people complain about Christmas tree, section decorations. Something for you? Hafspajen (talk) 17:56, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * , what and where are these complaints? Can I see them on a Talk page so that I know what to address and how to address it? I'll be happy to take a look if there is a specific need for improvement. Thanks. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:25, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, the section Setting up and taking down is tagged = This section may be confusing or unclear to readers and Decoration has been tagged, This section may need to be rewritten entirely to comply with Wikipedia's quality standards - and it might be a little difficult to clean up for me. Copy editing and clean up is needed, possibly grammar problems and confusing formulations. Hafspajen (talk) 21:41, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * , I've looked at these pages a couple of times, and I don't see an easy way to provide a quick copy edit that would fix the section. It does indeed need a complete rewrite/rebalance and a comparison to the main article linked from that section. That's not something I'm willing to do at this time. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:00, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh, well, no problem. Hafspajen (talk) 04:09, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I know coauthors field throws an error message, but . ..
... the coauthors field is a feature, not a bug, when it is used to list the contributors of chapters to a volume edited by editors who are already listed in editor fields. It is an error worse than leaving in a no-op coauthors fields (yeah, I know that that field doesn't display by default) when a book is listed that already has its editors named, as the editors will display in the correct manner for a bibliographic entry in that case. I'm sure you are just trying to help here, and I really need to talk to someone else about the changes in the CS1 parameters, but who? The changes in the CS1 parameters, deprecating parameters that were used correctly by editors like me who read the fine documentation, are wasting your time and mine, and resulting in a whole bunch of changes that are very difficult to roll back to correct. Where is the discussion among editors about which parameters are deprecated, and why? Thanks for your help, and best wishes for much enjoyment and appreciation of your editing. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 00:33, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * As the citation was written, the authors of the book in question were displayed only in the wikitext, not in the article. How does that hidden information help readers locate the book in question or learn who the authors of the chapters in the book were? I believe that readers should not be expected to view the wikitext in the hope that some hidden information will be there to help them.


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


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


 * Most of the discussion about CS1 citations happens at Help talk:Citation Style 1, with some additional technical discussion at Module talk:Citation/CS1. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:01, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * If it is desired to include the names of all authors in the wikitext, but to display just a few, the approved method is by means of the display-authors parameter. This does require that coauthors not be used, each author being specified separately - either as last1first1 etc. or as author1 etc. -- Red rose64 (talk) 11:37, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Now fixed in the by converting coauthors to lastn firstn format with 0 for good measure. -- 79.67.241.76 (talk) 17:31, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * ... and now it is . -- 79.67.241.76 (talk) 22:06, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * ... and . -- 79.67.241.76 (talk) 23:32, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * ... and . -- 79.67.241.76 (talk) 07:48, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Fixing coauthors in general
Hi Jonesey. I feel really bad saying this stuff. I know you are trying to help. When I was going through Category:CS1 errors: coauthors without author, I generally employed a method such that when I erred, it would keep the error message in. Also, the ones that I didn't touch were generally the ones that I couldn't even figure out what to do quickly. And had already gone through alphabetically up to "H" I believe, so a lot of what was in the category up to there were weird cases. So I think you ended up creating a lot of problems with your method: E.g., all the Fishbase cites like, those are the editors, not the authors. Or a funny one like this:. Coauthor named Med Vet? Those are actually part of the sole author's title as a Doctor of Veterinary Medicine! Anyway, maybe we can think of a way to go back through these efficiently and check for issues like that? For the random selection of a run of 17 edits in the "D"s that I looked at that, 9 of them had problems         -- Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 20:56, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Don't feel bad. I make mistakes just like anyone. Feel free to fix any mistakes that I have made. I never take it personally. This issue, however, is a case of Garbage In, Garbage Out. I saw a lot of crazy stuff in that category as I fixed about 2,100 articles with this error. The 90 or so articles that are left were the ones that were too complicated to fix quickly with a single script; I expect to get to those in the next few days. As for the citations where editors are now listed in the author field, or multiple parts of an author's name are listed in parameters for multiple authors, welcome to Wikipedia. It's ugly out there.


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


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

A barnstar for you!

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

GOCE March drive wrapup
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:57, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Refn/doc
Hi.

These two paragraphs appear shortly after one another and explain the exact same thing. As such, one of them is redundant:
 * Parser tags such as do not allow the inclusion of wikimarkup such as substing, variables or templates. The magic word   can be used to resolve these issues, but the syntax can be non-obvious. This template uses   with easy to understand parameters.
 * Because of a technical limitation, a set of  does not work inside another. But they do work inside this template. This is mainly useful for explanatory footnotes that requires a cite using . (For more information, see .)

The second is less technical. Oh, and by the way, it is I who is reverting, hence, you are teaching BRD to the wrong person. It is certainly not Bold, Revert, counter-revert and gone for six month to avoid Discussion.

Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 02:09, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the note. I have responded at Template talk:Refn. – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:11, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

AWB
That was a slip of my finger, and I was going to revert it, but it didn't appear to have gone through on my end. Thanks for fixing that! Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:34, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * , no problem. Be careful out there. – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:38, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Invite!

 * In case you happen to be in Portland this weekend! -- Another Believer ( Talk ) 02:00, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Edit war.
Could you please alert someone to the edit-war going on at "Skyhook (structure)" so that it can be dealt with accordingly. -- 79.67.241.231 (talk) 09:49, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I see an ongoing discussion on the Talk page, so I'm going to decline to get involved. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:00, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Other than fixing up the duplicate references and their templates (twice!), I am also keeping out of it. -- 79.67.241.231 (talk) 15:48, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Discretionary sanction alerts

 * This follows on from your comments at WP:BOTREQ

At the Bot Requests page I am arguing against alerts about discretionary sanctions (DS) being delivered by bots. If you do not want such notices from humans either, then I suppose that you could put a notice on your user or user talk page saying that you are aware that discretionary sanctions are active in  that includes a timestamp (which you update at least once per year) and a request not to receive templated alerts. This would be taken as a formal awareness of the existence of discretionary sanctions, which means that you could be sanctioned under them without further notice if your editing behaviour is such that sanctions are required (if your editing is good then awareness of the sanctions regime has no practical implications).

Note though that this is just my opinion, and other administrators may disagree with me. The new DS regime, which introductes the concept of "alerts", which explicitly carry no implication of wrong-doing (unlike the "notices" they superceded), is only days old. Thryduulf (talk) 12:32, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the idea. I think I'm done providing feedback on this bad idea at the bot requests page. I think it goes against the fundamental idea of AGF, but I know that my opinion holds little weight. I'll wait to see (1) if a bot operator takes on the request and (2) how the BRFA process goes. I expect that things will blow up somewhere along the way. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:20, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Typos
Apologies for the. I didn't run a script. That was a manual edit and I still managed to accidentally change one of the dashes within one of the DOI values. D'oh!

I think citation bot made an incorrect decision on the. I have now reported that as a bug.

I'll be glad when there's some standardisation around using, and not using, hyphens in parameter names. I took a guess rather than go look it up - and. Thanks for fixing. -- 79.67.241.249 (talk) 08:35, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
 * That's funny. There is a commonly-used "dashes" script that makes this same error. I just assumed that you had used it.
 * I believe there was a discussion about parameter names standardizing on hyphens. Barring that, we should at least make an alias for each parameter that uses an underscore (or no space), so that hyphens are valid. Have you found parameters that accept only underscores, or that do not allow a hyphen between two words? – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:27, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I regularly use trans-title and then see people correct it. Will be glad when hyphens are "the standard". I recently read a conversion about that on a talk page somewhere. I'm not sure about other parameter names, and I haven't kept a list. I'll try to pay more attention to this over the next few weeks. -- 79.67.241.222 (talk) 19:54, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Regarding orig-year, it's not a valid parameter, and attempting to use it throws the error " Unknown parameter orig-year ignored (help) ". But trans-title is valid (provided that title is also present) - it throws no error but is displayed in square brackets after the main title. If people are claiming that it is not valid, and using that claim as an excuse to alter it to something else (presumably trans_title), it is they who are in the wrong. -- Red rose64 (talk) 22:33, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the extra detail. I see many references with a non-English title and no translation, and try to add that back in wherever I can. One reason for the missing data is an editing tool which trashed the translated title if an editor attempted to add one. What's more strange is the fact that no-one ever reported that behaviour and let it continue for several years. -- 79.67.241.222 (talk) 19:10, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Typos @ fighter pages
Thank for correcting my recurring typo (acessdatte) on all thse fighter pages. Psycho-Krillin (talk) 21:29, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. Thanks for adding content to Wikipedia! – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:07, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

PMC Citations
I stumbled across the discussion at Module talk:Citation/CS1/Archive 9 while looking for something entirely different. I think the change that was made might need to be reverted; I found the following at International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing and Publication of Scholarly Work in Medical Journals: Sample References: PubMed PMID: 19204236; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC2653214.
 * Forooghian F, Yeh S, Faia LJ, Nussenblatt RB. Uveitic foveal atrophy: clinical features and associations. Arch Ophthalmol. 2009 Feb;127(2):179-86.

Apparently we're not doing it correctly; perhaps the editors who are typing  before the number are trying to get the citation to match this style. The full format includes  followed by a space and then   is inserted before the number. The format we're using for  is apparently incorrect, as well; note that   precedes   followed by a space and the number. While we might be able to eliminate the  and   notations, apparently including   before the number is standard. The template will need to be updated and the instructions made clear that the template will add the PMC before the number, all the editor needs to do is supply the number. More examples may be found here that eliminate the : (List of other   articles citing the referenced article) The article at pubmed.gov lists the following at the end of the article:. I think we may safely drop the. There is also a  article from the Perdue University Biological Sciences department that specifically states that the   is to be included before the number, read the Citation examples section on page 2.

Sorry if I've opened a can of worms; let me know if there's something I can do to help. Thanks.&mdash;D'Ranged 1 talk 21:57, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Update. I've taken this discussion to Help talk:Citation Style 1. Jump in if you'd like, otherwise, you're off the hook!&mdash;D'Ranged 1 talk 22:49, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for moving the discussion. That was the right thing to do. – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:41, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Appreciation
I just wanted to say how much I admire your skills and initiative on the May drive. Really amazing work. AbsoluteMack (talk) 14:59, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Caps fix?
How did you do that caps fix? Is there a tool?--DThomsen8 (talk) 15:29, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I use a Mac OS program called TextWrangler or a Windows program called Notepad++, either of which allows you to select a block of text and change the case in a number of ways. I copied the whole wikitext out of the Edit window into my text editor program, made the changes, and then copied the text back to the WP Edit window. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:53, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Good work. I could do that, too.--DThomsen8 (talk) 19:09, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

AfC Invite

 * Not my thing. Maybe someday. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:49, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Suggestions
I thought I was creating suggestions for those parameters since they have none presently. I think suggestions should be available for them; how does one make that happen? Thanks for your patience.&mdash; D'Ranged 1  VTalk  19:27, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
 * When a deprecated parameter is used, a red error message is displayed. That error message is followed by a "help" link that leads to instructions on which parameters to use. I like your idea, but the module does not display suggestions for parameters that are valid, even if they are deprecated.


 * If these deprecated parameters are eventually marked as unsupported by the module, that will be the time to put your proposed text in the Suggestions list. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:35, 30 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you again for your patience; this whole system is very nuanced and I'm trying to get a grip on it, but it's hard to extract the needed information from what I've been looking at. Perhaps I'm looking in the wrong places. Also, I have no idea why my post was added to the page twice; I must have previewed it, clicked "Save page", then used my browser to go back to the preview (why, I don't know—except that I've been having connectivity issues of late; very frustrating!) and clicked "Save page" again. Please pardon the clutter!&mdash; D'Ranged 1  VTalk  20:45, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Working on fixing citation errors has taught me about the nuances of citation syntax more than any of the discussions or documentation. I recommend working on a specific category of CS1 errors for a while. If you don't know how to fix a particular error, skip it rather than implement a bad fix. As you fix more citations, you'll gain a better understanding of the system. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:18, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Default error messages
Who decides which error messages display by default for all users? I notice that unless I update my /css page, I don't see the "Cite uses deprecated parameters" message. I would think we would want all editors to see this message to educate them so they could avoid making the same mistake in the future.&mdash; D'Ranged 1  VTalk  21:28, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The community decides. See this discussion for details about the current situation. We have two bots, Monkbot and BattyBot, that are periodically cleaning up deprecated parameters and deprecated parameters, but there is no consensus yet that those bots have cleaned a reasonable amount of "bot-fixable" errors. Soon, I hope. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:51, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
 * What I've seen demonstrates that use of some of the deprecated parameters is not readily "bot-fixable"; we're continuing to allow editors to create messes that have to be cleaned up by hand. (No one has come up with a good way to parse coauthors yet, that I've seen, for example.) There are currently 72,958 pages in . Long after the parameters themselves have been deprecated, they continue to appear in tools that editors rely on every day. I've been trying to work through some of the articles on that list, but I'm too picky and can't just remove the deprecated parameters and move on in many cases, so I'm not making much progress. (That has led, however, to much-improved articles like Attila, which was a mess, and a moderately-improved article at 1958–59 Ashes series.) I'm trying to balance "maintenance" activities with improving articles activities; I'll get it sorted.
 * I just realized I'm venting; I'm sorry. This is not a windmill I have the time or energy to tilt at. I just read that Mr.Z-man is releasing a new version of RefToolbar tomorrow that will finally no longer include coauthors; that will, I hope, cut down on the number of articles using that difficult-to-fix parameter. I hope to be around the next time someone proposes deprecating a parameter; it should never be done unless there is a plan in place (like updating tools) to deal with the consequences beforehand. Thanks for the information, and for the "ear".&mdash; D'Ranged 1  VTalk  02:13, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Monkbot does an amazing job of parsing coauthors. It is taking a hiatus for a while, but I expect it will be back at some point soon. It fixed something like 90,000 articles in a few months. Before Monkbot started work on the category, it contained 164,000 articles. Now it is at 73,000, and there are no doubt more articles it will be able to fix after its break.


 * Windmills are no fun. I mostly ignore some kinds of errors, preferring to focus on short-term goals and on categories that are harder for bots to fix. I strongly recommend focusing your energy on CS1 error categories that can be emptied out completely. Once a category is emptied, it can be set up so that notifies editors when they add an article to the category by creating an erroneous citation. Once a category is cleared, it is also easier to look at the list of articles recently added to the category and check each article's history to view and/or revert recent changes that created erroneous citations.


 * I have been working recently on the "archiveurl" error category, which contains only about 250 more articles that need fixing, and on the ISBN error category, from which I removed about 5,000 articles in the last few months. The remaining article fixes in both categories are usually pretty easy, although they are almost all manual, not scriptable, at this point.


 * In the last year or so, I have worked with a few others to clear out fourteen of the CS1 error categories. Some of those categories contained many thousands of articles. I'm happy that you have joined the effort. As I said above, I recommend finding a category that you can work on for a while so that you can become familiar with citations and the strange things editors do to them. I spent about six months just on the "wikilinks in title" category, fixing 50 or so a day until I had fixed almost all of the original 8,000 articles (another editor fixed about 1,500 of them). I learned a lot about citations, and about editing WP, while I did that work. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:37, 1 June 2014 (UTC)


 * ReferenceBot does not need an empty category to start watching. It just needs the category wordings.
 * Those were the categories identified ages ago, but only some have the descriptions. 930913 &#123;&#123;ping&#125;&#125; 07:07, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I understand, but I do not want editors who revert bad edits to be notified about creating malformed references. I see that as a form of false positive, which is something that an error-reporting bot should avoid as much as possible. That is why I prefer to clear out the category first.


 * There are other cases in which the work of clearing out a category reveals a need for an improvement in the citation module code. I like to get those out of the way before possibly notifying editors that they have created a malformed citation that is actually reasonable. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:05, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Never said it was a typo
that is why the edit exp = "(sp ?)". anyways, a differentiation of a spelling is a [sic] to indicate that it is presented as original.GinAndChronically (talk) 12:02, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
 * If you go into the article's history, you should see a red error message in that reference. You should also notice that the "sic" link is not clickable, because wikilinks within title parameters do not work when a URL is present. That is the error I was fixing. – Jonesey95 (talk) 12:41, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Accurate edit summaries
Hello, we had some cross editing on Japanese occupation of Nauru. I reverted your edit with the edit summary 'Fixing "Pages with citations using conflicting page specifications" Lua error'. This looks like a generic edit summary for a automated or semi-automated task you are performing. It gives no indication if there has been any thought put into what was actually done, or if it was only accomplished by a semi-automated edit. In this case it just removed one of the two pages which were in the citation. My response was to first revert the edit then investigate to see how best to combine the two. As part of that investigation, I did determine that the 314 was the total number of pages and was in the process of reverting myself when I found that there was an edit conflict due to your reverting my first revert.

Your second edit summary said " No. The editor mistakenly put the book's total page count in the page= parameter. Please click through the ISBN and look before reverting." I agree that I, perhaps, should have investigated prior to reverting. However, I would say that I should not have needed to investigate. Your original edit summary should have stated that the 314 was removed as the total pages. If it had, or if edit summary looked like something other than a task-oriented generic edit summary, then I, and any other editor looking at the edit, wouldn't need to guess, or spend their time investigating because you did not bother to make it clear in your edit summary why you were removing information.

I agree that such things should be removed. Just please, take a little bit of time to explain it just a tiny bit so that everyone following after you doesn't have to spend time figuring out why you did the exact thing that you did. We both could have done better here. I will try to do so. I hope that you will also. &mdash; Makyen (talk) 05:15, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the thoughtful feedback. I customize my edit summaries based on the type of citation error I am fixing. Given that many of the edits I am fixing provide no edit summary at all, or something minimal like "expanding section", I think my edit summaries are reasonable. I always AGF and rarely revert other editors' good faith, well-sourced edits (even if they are loaded with citation errors), preferring to fix their citations instead of reverting. That said, feel free to revert any of my edits if you have reasonable evidence to believe that I made an error. I don't take any of this personally; I'm just here to build an encyclopedia that works. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:50, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Input on image decision
Hi you are invited to vote for the image to be used on the LG G2 infobox page at Talk:LG G2. Thanks! GadgetsGuy (talk) 04:04, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

William Gibson errors
Wow, that was ugly. My apology for leaving such a mess. But I did not touch any references. I hope you just reverted, rather than using manual repair. I don't see how I could have left such a mess. At first, seeing your edit summary, I thought perhaps I had been using my iPad, and had accidently touched the screen between preview and save. But I'm pretty sure that I was using my desktop because I had been doing a binary search to find when scoop.it snuck into 'External Links', and using 'find next' to check for presence in each version. I did not check all the way down into the reference section since I'd only removed the sentence and the link. I spent at least 20 minutes on that edit; I still don't see how so many reference formattings got screwed up, but I guess diffs don't lie, do they? - Neonorange (talk) 03:33, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
 * At first, I thought you had rolled back to a revision before a lot of citation cleanup had happened, since I saw some of that in the history. But as I dug into it further, it looked like you had made a number of constructive edits, so I couldn't figure out what had happened.


 * Now that I look at it more, with your explanation, it looks like you inadvertently rolled the article all the way back to the 28 November 2012 version. Oops! That's not what you intended. I'm going to revert your rollback and then remove the scoop.it link. – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:45, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Be careful out there. – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:56, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I am impressed with your approach to diagnosis and solution. How about this for my excuse: the scoop.it site was so ugly and so filled with ads that my brain locked up. (hmm, that gives me an idea... no, won't go there for a few days) Thanks again. - Neonorange (talk) 04:06, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

So sorry—thank you!
I'm not trying to create work for you, honest. I was in a bit of a hurry and didn't take the care I should have on the documentation for cite podcast; thank you for the clean-up. I hate to think someone has to follow me around and make sure my edits are made correctly; I'll be more careful in the future. (Like not editing when I know I have to run out the door!) I appreciate all you do; enjoy your day!&mdash; D'Ranged 1  VTalk  23:18, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
 * That's what Watchlists are for, right? I'm sure you'll have the opportunity to return the favor someday. Anyway, you did all the hard work; I just came in with a broom and swept up the dust.


 * When I have to run out the door, I usually leave a tab showing the page or diff open in my web browser to return to in a quieter moment. I have one open right now that has been waiting patiently for my attention for about a week. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:31, 13 June 2014 (UTC)


 * May I just say you have a great attitude? I wish it were more prevalent here. Unfortunately, in this instance, I not only didn't leave a tab open, I shut down my computer entirely. I appreciate that you think I did the "hard work"; that doesn't count for much when it has to be cleaned up, imo. I do appreciate the assistance, and look forward to being of help to you in the future.&mdash; D'Ranged 1  VTalk  02:37, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Die Antwoord
Hi, thanks for fixing that citation error on the Die Antwoord page. 175.39.38.24 (talk) 23:43, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
 * , you're welcome. Fixing these minor errors is my primary activity on WP. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:21, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Your comments at user talk: Citation bot
Did you read the top of that talk page? The operator is seldom on wiki. If you seek a response, I suggest you use email. LeadSongDog come howl!  05:49, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I also left a message at the operator's talk page, which should send him a notification via e-mail. Thanks for the reminder. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:53, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Is that accessdate removal actually a problem? It looks like it's only removing it from cites that don't contain urls.  My understanding is that the accessdate parameter exists so that if a link goes dead, it is possible to go look up the link on an archive site and know a date when the link was valid. For citing books as in the article you linked, the accessdate doesn't really apply to anything. —Torchiest talkedits 16:52, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think that the bot is being as discriminating as you or I would be. Since the bot was not approved to perform this particular operation, and there is no consensus that removing accessdates is the right thing to do (as opposed to commenting them out or adding a URL or eliminating the error message from the cite module code), the bot is putting itself at risk of being stopped altogether for something small that it should simply keep its nose out of.


 * Here are some links to discussions about this accessdate error: here and here. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:38, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

RfC on another template with citation references
I know we disagreed regarding Template:Australian Trilobite References but because we recently discussed a template that contained citation references, I'd like your input at an RfC regarding Template:Geographic reference which is another template that contain citation references (as ref tags) but in a similar manner as the Australian Trilobites one. Thanks. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:14, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the invitation. I put my two cents in. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:42, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. In regards with Wikipedia talk:Template namespace, I disagree but I've been here long enough to get used to it. For CAstat, Template:Cite WAstat, Template:RussiaBasicLawRef, etc., what do you think of a policy (maybe not policy, more style or something more like suggestion) to always include url or string part. I can imagine a time where WikiSource actually tries to store every single statute or law and, at the very least, I know they are storing some historical biography guides. The current method is for the parameters to be in the citation but if subtemplates are used, that cross-wiki usage would be ideal. I'd rather think it out loud with people who support more than I do. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:38, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I guess I don't see why some of these templates bother you so much. As you can see, I agree with you in some places (that geography template is a mess!), but not in others (I disagree with your substing and deleting cite doi templates; the citations will fork, and errors in them will be more time-consuming to fix).


 * I have seen the clear utility and concision of many of these single-source templates in many articles. Where I have disagreed with you, it has often been about issues that may have the potential to arise but are far from coming to pass, such as there being tens of millions of cite templates. I prefer to work on actual problems that are manifesting themselves right now in WP rather than dreaming up solutions to problems that may never arise.


 * It looks like you've been away from WP editing for a few years. You might consider that some cultural and technological shifts have taken place while you were away, and maybe spend some time hanging out in places like the Village Pump where people discuss basic issues, before you start trying to make sweeping changes to things that have been created and widely used for years.


 * I do not follow your sentence about the proposed policy or guideline. What does "to always include url or string part" mean? I also do not understand "if subtemplates are used, that cross-wiki usage would be ideal". Sorry if I'm being dense. – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:23, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

MOS question.
Do lead sections fall under the MOS rules as far as avoiding "the" as the opening word goes, or is that just for titles? --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 00:15, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi Skamecrazy123, there's no requirement to avoid opening to first sentence of the article with "the"; you should use your judgement to determine a suitable opening. If you need any further help, please tell us which article you're referring to. See the MOS here.  Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 03:20, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Documentation
If it is simply listing parameters, then why does the section say "Usage?" And, these examples/parameter listings previously did contain the date for copying purposes, and the text above the code boxes says "Some samples may include the current date." I don't understand why the date which used to be included here isn't being included anymore. BenYes? 19:23, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Sigh. I thought that none of the CS1 cite template docs showed values in these parameter lists, but now that I have looked at, , , and , which are among the most used ones, there is no consistency. There should be, but documentation for each template is, at least in part, manually maintained. I don't know how to set them up to share common documentation, or even if that is the right thing to do. We muddle along.... – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:07, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

E T Davies
Thanks in great part to you, the article about E T Davies was keep after its deletion review, but it still needs addition citations to reliable, independent sources. --Bejnar (talk) 15:56, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
 * , you're welcome. I found a good source via a quick Google search. Looking in Google Books and Google News for terms related to E. T. Davies, such as the titles of his publications listed on his VIAF page (linked at the bottom of the article), should lead you to useful sources. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:24, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

GOCE Drive
Hello Jonesey! I see that you are the head coordinator for the GOCE! If you don't mind answering my question, it is if you can rollover words from the June blitz to the July drive... Cheers!  WooHoo!  • Talk to BrandonWu!  02:24, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
 * , welcome to the GOCE! Rollover words from the June blitz will apply to the August blitz, which is the next one. Drives and blitzes are held in alternating months. Rollover words from each drive apply to the next drive. – Jonesey95 (talk) 02:54, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

A kitten for you!
Thank you for your contribution to Wikipedia.

Anabeel12 (talk) 09:57, 28 June 2014 (UTC) 
 * Thanks! Cute. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:14, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Fulham FC - Source feat. Jamie Redknapp
When I originally added this source I couldn't find an author as such. Jamie Redknapp had co-authored it (that much was very clear in the article): Redknapp did not write the article. Is there a way of showing that? Spa-Franks (talk) 23:07, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Redknapp and "Opta" are the only cited contributors. We do not cite "staff" or "editorial staff" as an author, so after looking at the source, I put Redknapp and Opta as the authors. I think a reasonable person would see that those were the only named contributors to the article. If you really don't like that, you could leave author blank and enter Jamie Redknapp, contributor or something like that. – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:01, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank You
Thank you very much, Your edits to the monarch butterfly article are appreciated!

bpage (talk) 13:58, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:18, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Oh dear...
This wasn't the response I was hoping for from the involved party. Sorry. :-( Baffle gab1978 (talk) 04:06, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
 * So it goes. We'll see if they can work it out like grown-ups. I hope so. The article is a treat to read and will be a great one if they let us shine it up a bit. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:36, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Template:cite doi RfC
Because you commented at this discussion, I would appreciate your views at this RfC on the larger issue of DOI templates. Thanks! -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:23, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

AutoEd example
Hi Jonesey95,

Thanks for undoing that edit. I should've reviewed it more carefully. In my defence though, the space in the list item and the superfluous line break at the and are fine, right? AutoEd probably shouldn't be modifying content inside  either, though. Krinkle (talk) 15:28, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I never worry about spaces and line breaks. I'm fussy, but just not that fussy. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:29, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Handling of ISBN errors
Hello, I saw that in this edit you have commented out the invalid ISBNs with comment "invalid; please verify". I think this is a bad idea. The ISBN error _is_ the request to verify and fix the ISBN. I don't think it is even possible to find the broken ISBNs once you've commented them out (a wiki search for "invalid; please verify" finds nothing). I was able to fix the ISBN (diff) but only because I had already opened the page via before your edits. If your edit had got there first I would not have known there was a problem to fix.TuxLibNit (talk) 22:32, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Well stated. I have fixed a few thousand of these, and I have commented only a tiny handful when I was unable to find the book using Google, Worldcat, Amazon, or other book searches. I don't know why I was unable to find this particular book.


 * My goal is to clear out . I have fixed about 5,000–6,000 of the original 8,000 so far. If I run into this situation in the future, I will either leave it alone or comment the ISBN to hide the glaring red error message, and add the template, which puts the article into  but does not put any error messages in the rendered article. Thanks for the comment. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:23, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikilinks in URL
Hi! About this issue, then what I will do is not use the "url" parameter at all and instead link to the URL from the "page" field. That way the URL can be clicked on from the "page" WhisperToMe (talk) 04:58, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * That would be one way to do it. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:04, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Hmmm... it seemed to malfunction even with the URL in the page field so I for now moved the page links outside of the template WhisperToMe (talk) 05:06, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Blatant canvassing
Don't forget to say support. EEng (talk) 23:42, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Dates_and_numbers
I'm contacting everyone who has commented but who hasn't taken an explicit Support or Oppose position (or if you did, I missed it). In the interest of bringing this discussion to resolution, it might be helpful if you could do that. Thanks. EEng (talk) 13:00, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Merge discussion for Wagon-wheel effect
An article that you have been involved in editing, Wagon-wheel effect, has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. 128.211.168.1 (talk) 00:09, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

August 2014 blitz
Hey Jonesey! The last week of August is approaching. Is that when the August blitz will be, or has the blitz been cancelled? Cheers! Brandon (MrWooHoo) • Talk to Brandon!  18:23, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, next week. Real life has prevented me from setting it up. Maybe today. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:16, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Template:Citation Style documentation/editor
The error message for four editors shows only if you have .citation-comment {display: inline !important;} /* show all Citation Style 1 error messages */ set in your CSS. It also adds the page to a hidden maintenance category. Not sure if /how to document that. --  Gadget850talk 22:45, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 * So it does. I forgot that one was still hidden. I will comment out the note about the error. Exactly four editors still shows "et al.", as you can see if you log out and look at my Sandbox. We may be able to get rid of that holdover feature once the error category is cleaned out. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:34, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * You're welcome! It's nice to be noticed. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:09, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

An Odd Issue with Copernicus
I reverted your edit on the Copernicus page because it caused (or seemed to cause) some weird issue where it vanished the images. Don't know the tool you used, but maybe it needs tweaking? --  Veggies  ( talk ) 23:41, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
 * , I did not see anything wrong with the page after I edited it, and I still do not see anything wrong when I look at my edited version in the history. Nor do I see anything in my simple edit that could have caused image problems. Did you try to reload the page or WP:PURGE it before reverting? (I recommend one of the purge-related Gadgets.) I find that purging, in particular, fixes many odd display problems. I will redo my edit manually and I will check it again. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:50, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Very strange. Seems to look fine, now. I'll purge before resetting in the future. What a weird issue. Thanks. --  Veggies  ( talk ) 07:39, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Correcting DOI error
Could you explain how you fixed this? I see that the DOI error is gone, but I'm not seeing any differences in the dif, just "jeb" highlighted in the previous and current page. Thanks.AioftheStorm (talk) 03:02, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
 * There was a hidden character of some sort before the "j" in "jeb". I couldn't see it, but I copied the whole DOI to a text editor on my computer and told it to replace all hidden characters with "zzz", and "zzz" popped up in front of the "j". I removed the junk, copied the remaining DOI value, and pasted it back into the article.


 * I don't see that problem very often, but I do see it often enough in my gnome work that I knew what was wrong when the DOI looked fine to the naked eye. – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:33, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
 * How interesting, thanks for letting me know :) AioftheStorm (talk) 04:13, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

LCCN vs. Library of Congress Classification numbers
Hi. Regarding [ this recent edit] at Georgian numerals — I understand there is a difference between LCCNs and the Library of Congress Classification, and the value you deleted was not in fact an LCCN as intended by the lccn= parameter. However, it seems a shame to discard this piece of information entirely. To the best of your knowledge, is there any legitimate way to include a source's Library of Congress Classification identifier in a cite book template? And if there is not, should there be? — Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 06:40, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
 * You could put it in id, I suppose. Something like id. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:30, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

A VERY THANKFUL barnstar for you!

 * You're welcome. Good work on the hard work of writing the article! Expect to see BattyBot stop by the article in the next day or so to clean up some date formatting and do a bit of helpful tidying. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:30, 11 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I just don't seem to grasp the intricacies of referencing. I APPRECIATE your work on this article very much.  I want to maintain the consistency of referencing.  So should I list sources in the bibliography if I refer to them a multitude of times? Do you know how to reference books on a Kindle?  There are no page numbers, just funky location nos.  Isn't there a bot or something that can set up a reference system for a whole article?


 * You are my hero,
 *  Bfpage &#124;leave a message 22:19, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
 * For the Kindle book, I've never referenced one, but I would use "type=Kindle e-book|at=location ###" or something similar.


 * If you list the source in full in the Bibliography, like the Pyle and Oberhauser sources, you can use the short footnote (sfn) template, as you have done, to refer to them. You do not need to list the full details of a source in multiple places. Overall, the references in this article are better and more consistent than those in most articles I come across. You have done well. And no, there is no bot to do most of the work for you. There are a few that can tidy up a few things in an existing article, but the real work needs to be done by human editors – it's just like real life. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:19, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

GOCE drive rollover count.
Greetings, Jonesey95! Since you were the leader of the September GOCE Backlog Drive, I figured you'd be the best one to consult on this matter. In the totals for the participants, I haven't been given a 50% bonus for the August 2013 article I copyedited, even though I specified the month it was from. As a result, my rollover count for the next drive is out by 200. &#34;We could read for-EVER&#59; reading round the wiki!&#34; (talk) 17:03, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
 * , corrected. Thanks for the note. In the future, remember to add "*O" for old articles and "*R" for requests (see the drive instructions at the top of every drive page). The drive statistics are produced by a semi-automated script that depends on these standard notations. Happy editing! – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:27, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see. Thanks! :) &#34;We could read for-EVER&#59; reading round the wiki!&#34; (talk) 17:30, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Translation issues
Please stop fixing trans_title= issues by misusing chapter= as you have done in two articles. See, for example, history on Polynomial interpolation. A title= should usually be matched with trans_title=. Glrx (talk) 04:02, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
 * That's a case of garbage in, garbage out. I had no way of knowing if the original editor intended to insert an English chapter title, or if a foreign-language chapter title was deleted at some point, or if the editor inserted trans-chapter instead of trans-title. I try to make changes that reflect what appear to be the original editor's intent, unless there is a clear error. In the cases you found, my choice was incorrect. Thanks for catching it. – Jonesey95 (talk) 06:05, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Help on Loboc Church
I hope you could do some CE on the article. I already wrote a request on WP:GOCE. Thanks.--Carlojoseph14 (talk) 18:26, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't work on a lot of articles from the GOCE Requests page, but I will take a look if I have time. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:43, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. --Carlojoseph14 (talk) 02:52, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * You're welcome. I'm just blowing the dust out and trying to keep things tidy around here. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:24, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for correcting my mistakes
Thank you for correcting most of my citation mistakes at Alfa Romeo 8C and pointing out the one you couldn't correct. I have no idea why I put 1972 in the Vorderman citations; the Hull & Moore citations to another article in the same issue were correct. Thanks again! Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 03:12, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. It takes a community to build an encyclopedia. Have fun editing that Alfa article. – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:14, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Happy Halloween!!!
Cheers! &#34;We could read for-EVER&#59; reading round the wiki!&#34; (talk) 17:48, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Sherlock Holmes
I've finished the GAN preparation, and you mentioned that you wanted to take a look. All the best,  Mini  apolis  21:37, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
 * It looks much improved from the skim reading I did a few weeks ago. I will go through it and tweak a bit over the next few days, section by section. You may find that I make some of the same edits and comments I made before; if so, sorry for the redundancy, but if I find the same problem twice, it might be an actual problem (or I might have an actual problem, which is likely). – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:21, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
 * A few notes on my copy edits, to be added to as I go along. Consider this a pre-GA prose review.
 * 1. "Attitudes towards women" is a title that doesn't seem to fit the section. Perhaps "Relationships with women"or something else would be more appropriate.
 * Trouble is, Holmes doesn't really have "relationships with women" :-).  Mini  apolis  21:08, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
 * 2. The "Other women" section needs reorganization. The first sentence is out of place. The second sentence of the second paragraph is somewhat redundant with much of the first paragraph.
 * Reorganized. Keep in mind, though, that this is GA and not FA. 21:08, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
 * 3. There are a few places in the article where there is a jump from the fictional world to the real world, jumping from Watson and Holmes's descriptions of events and people to Doyle's descriptions or those of Klinger etc. It is a bit jarring.
 * 4. The section on deduction says that he uses abductive reasoning. The article contrasts abductive reasoning with deductive reasonin, but the Holmes article conflates the two.
 * The way I read it, he uses both forms of reasoning for different purposes.  Mini  apolis  21:08, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
 * 5. Is "sergeant of Marines" proper British English? I have never seen this usage in American English.


 * 6. What does "NCO" stand for?
 * Changed "sergeant of Marines" (probably a direct canonical reference) to "Marine sergeant" and "NCO" (common in American English) to "non-commissioned officer".  Mini  apolis  21:08, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
 * 7.Replace "his chronicler" with "Watson"? The word "chronicler" appears at least twice; I would replace it with the straightforward "Watson" in all cases.
 * I judiciously used "his chronicler" (as I did "the detective") to minimize repetition.  Mini  apolis  21:08, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
 * 8. The "Pistols" section is just a laundry list. Summarize or choose notable instances.
 * There may be too much detail for you (or me), but it's reliably sourced.  Mini  apolis  21:08, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
 * 9. I found one dead link in the Pistols section. Check for others. I think I was admonished once that dead links do not disqualify an article from being a GA, but dead links should be avoided in general.
 * Dead links should not be removed (although I'll check the refs and tag any I find), to preserve the possibility of repair.  Mini  apolis  21:08, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
 * 10. Wikipedia articles are used as references, in violation of WP:CIRCULAR.
 * The stories themselves, wikilinked, are primary sources.  Mini  apolis  21:08, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
 * 11. Reference formatting is inconsistent (scan the author names, for example). This is not a GA criterion, but it could be cleaned up.


 * 12. The long quotation in the "Knowledge" section does not match the text given at http://www.gutenberg.org/files/244/244-h/244-h.htm. This sort of problem is why I requested citations for each of the quoted sections of text. One could reasonably say "It's from the story, why should I cite it?" There are often differences in published versions of written works, however.


 * 13. The "Knowledge" section contains a bunch of apparent OR. I tagged the ones that stood out to me most vividly.


 * 14. The last paragraph of the Knowledge section should probably be removed or drastically revised. It's all OR claiming to be about Holmes's knowledge of psychology, but the incidents described are just knowledge of human nature.


 * 15. The author is sometimes referred to as "Doyle" and sometimes as "Conan Doyle".


 * 16. "Holmes helped marry forensic science ... and literature." This lead sentence refers to literature, but literature is not mentioned until much later in the section. The first sentence could be left out. In any event, this section also needs more citations, otherwise it appears to be OR that suffers from the post hoc fallacy, e.g. "Holmes frequently laments the contamination of a crime scene, and crime-scene integrity has become standard investigative procedure."


 * 17. I find this whole Influence section frustrating without citations. It repeatedly says "Holmes (or Conan Doyle) did this, and now it's popular", implying that Holmes was the cause, but not stating it explicitly or citing sources. I did not copy-edit this section because it needs major cleanup first.


 * 18. The "Scientific literature" section might fit better in the "Knowledge" section or in a new section of the article that contains out-of-fictional-universe information about the stories and the author. It is again jarring to be pulled back and forth between the real and fictional worlds. This section also uses a different citation style from other sections.


 * 19. "Finances" section is unreferenced. It feels like OR.
 * It's referenced, albeit with primary sources (the stories).  Mini  apolis  00:24, 7 November 2014 (UTC)


 * 20: What does "provided Doyle with a link" mean? Does it mean he gave him the idea, or taught him something about it, or exemplified it somehow?
 * The preceding sentence explains its meaning.  Mini  apolis  00:24, 7 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm not going to do the GA review, but I think the article is weak only on the criteria relating to original research and unnecessary detail. I have noted places where I had significant concerns. It passes criteria 1, 3a, 4, 5, and 6 with no trouble.


 * I'm done. Let me know if you have any questions, dear . Feel free to reject any of my edits, criticisms, or questions. I will not take it personally. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:56, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, with all the tags I don't know if it will be quick-failed but I'm going to nominate it anyway.  Mini  apolis  21:08, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I tried to be sparing with the tags (by my count, I added seven tags to this 8,000-word article), preferring to list comments here, because I wanted to give you a chance to rebuild the article your way as a complete piece. The article is well on its way to being wonderful after your work. Good luck with the GA nomination. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:25, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I can't see it not being quick-failed with the tags on it now, and I've already put as much time as I could (a lot) into its improvement. Since you didn't intend to review it, I don't understand why you didn't let the GAN process run its course instead of making it in the first place.  Mini  apolis  23:28, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The tags I added would only change the GA review if the reviewer were not competent enough to notice the items that I tagged. As I said above, four and a half of the six criteria have been met with ease, which means the article is much better than it was before your extensive editing. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:58, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

See my on the article talk page. After almost a month of hard work on this article, I've gone as far as I can. Tagging is a lot easier than fixing. Tant pis—it could've been a GA.  Mini  apolis  14:38, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for removing the tags; I'll nominate it soon, and do my bit by reviewing a nomination or two.  Mini  apolis  00:24, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

format oddness
Hi - thanks for but it was odd to me - when I had "date" in there originally it gave me date errors. That's the only reason I tried month/year. Seems to me some odd invisible syntax is going on. I have the same problem with the hyphens. I'm a Mac user and some quality of the - or – does not manage the same syntax. Anyway, just pointing out that there are some challenges I've not found a solution to. And the absolute insistance on a particular syntax tends to be a platform dependent formulation in case you weren't aware. --Smkolins (talk) 01:01, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. I don't know which of the dozens of fixes you had trouble applying yourself. If you give a specific example of a citation you tried to type, I may be able to help. If you get date errors, you should be able to follow the Help link for an explanation. If the Help doesn't help, I'll be happy to assist.


 * As for your last few sentences, I don't know what you are referring to. I use a Mac too. For a hyphen, just type the minus sign, to the right of the zero on your keyboard. For an en dash (to separate ranges, like 1894–1899), type option-minus. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:08, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Puzzling! I've done hyphen and option-minus as you say and still have people come up behind and change them somehow. Here's a question - I used the "US Extended" keyboard setting most of the time. I wonder if that changes things. As for the former is the "date" entry have illegal entries? For example distinguishing Jun, June and Jun.? Maybe it is something like that?? --Smkolins (talk) 01:20, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Follow the Help link in the date error or go to WP:BADDATEFORMAT and WP:MONTH to see acceptable and unacceptable date formats in citation templates. I fixed "March/April" by changing it to "March–April", "Sept" by changing it to "Sep", and more.


 * In short, don't worry about it unless you're obsessive about it like me. Someone will come in behind you and fix these little things. It's more important to fill the encyclopedia with accurate content than to worry about minor formatting issues. – Jonesey95 (talk) 02:47, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
 * that sounds good … thanks. --Smkolins (talk) 19:49, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank You :)
I really appreciate that you took the time to fix my Peoples of the Caucasus template, I hadn't noticed that template breaking error, thank you for fixing it. Abrahamic Faiths (talk) 01:47, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. This sort of error was very difficult to notice until a couple of weeks ago, when the Wikimedia developers added new code that checks for duplicate parameters. A few of us gnomes have been fixing the templates and articles with this error. – Jonesey95 (talk) 02:01, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi, can you make a comment about my new project Encyclopine.org
hi, Hi, can you make a comment about my new project Encyclopine.org?
 * Interesting idea. Good luck with it. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:52, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * You're welcome! We're all in this together. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:33, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Sorry about the duplication, but your good will is appreciated.

A barnstar for you!

 * You're welcome. Thanks for improving the article's content. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:00, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Parameter name
Hi. I saw your CS1 edit in Template:Infobox hydrogen. My eye catched that you used chapter-url, where the CS1 documentation writes chapterurl (no hyphen). No CS1 message results, so I guess it might be an accepted variant parameter name. No problem, but in future edits you might want to use the formal one. This is just a note, I have no reason to change your edit. -DePiep (talk) 05:43, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the note. The two parameter names are aliases, so they function identically to one another. We are moving toward consistency in parameter naming, with all multi-word parameters using hyphens instead of underscores, spaces, or nothing (two words jammed together). We haven't updated all of the citation documentation yet. That will take some time. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:50, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * OK, so it's the other way around. Is that hyphen-connecting new wisdom? I could use a good standard in this parameter naming issue ( any discussion link for that? found). -DePiep (talk) 05:54, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * For my lovely stalkers: hyphenated citation parameters RFC. – Jonesey95 (talk) 06:13, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. (Am I stalking?) -DePiep (talk) 08:20, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * No, but other people are, and they wanted to know where you found that RFC, so I linked to it for them. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:10, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Warning! TemplateData integrity compromised
Hi.

By now, you should have noticed that I have reverted your edits in Template:Cite journal/doc‎, Template:Cite book/doc, Template:Cite press release/doc and Template:Cite news/doc. That's because your edits have compromised the integrity of TemplateData JSON code. (Syntactic breaches are caught on save. But name/alias conflict and lack of care for existing valid usages are not.) I you are willing to make another attempt, you must be careful not breach this integrity.

That said, I am looking at and I don't see anything about decomissioning existing parameters. This probably means I will have review many of your other edits as well.

Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 09:16, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the notice, but I'm afraid I do not understand. I was following up on the part of the RfC that states "The documentation is to show this lowercase, hyphenated version as the one for "normal use". This is to establish a parameter name format that is uniformly available for all CS1 templates."


 * You mention "decommissioning existing parameters". First, I did not, to my knowledge, take action to decommission any existing parameters. That would require editing the citation module code, which I have not done with these edits. I edited only the documentation. Second, the RfC does mention that "this proposal is not to eliminate any current version of a parameter".


 * Can you please point me to information about this JSON integrity of which you speak, or explain to me how my edits were faulty? I have reviewed my edits and am unable to find anything wrong with them. Thanks. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:45, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
 * , I have read the TemplateData Tutorial, and it does not mention JSON integrity. I copied the template data text from my edited version of Template:Cite news/doc into the validator at jsonlint.com, and it validates.


 * The only tiny problem I can see with my edit of the TemplateData is that I failed to delete a hyphen in the "author-link" alias to change it to "authorlink". Is that the only problem? If so, can I reinstate my changes if I fix that problem? How can I check my edits in the future to ensure that they are valid? Thanks for any feedback and knowledge you can provide. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:56, 3 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Wow! Your messages almost made me lose faith in humanity! Alright, read carefully from now on, because carelessness of this degree is dangerous beyond all imagination.


 * Invoking revision #636341239 (pertaining Template:Cite journal/doc), on line 677, you changed "authorlink" to "author-link". Result: VisualEditor no longer acknowledges authorlink, which my colleagues and I used on hundreds of articles and is still valid. Same goes for authorlink2, accessdate, origyear, archiveurl, archivedate, layurl, laysource, laydate, authorlink3, authorlink4, authorlink5, authorlink6, authorlink7, authorlink8, authorlink9 and lastauthoramp. These are totally valid parameters and VisualEditor no longer recognizes them after your edit. All you had to do was to create an "Alias" entry for each of these using Manage TemplateData button in the editor.


 * This doesn't mean changes outside the JSON area (the area enclosed by ) are okay; they are even more kinky. Violation of MOS:STABILITY notwithstanding, you effectively changed the style of examples while leaving the style of syntax alone, effectively making them look different. Necessary changes to the template area and its shared documentations was already done.


 * Overall, you just did a reckless blind search & replace. Nothing else.


 * Best regards,
 * Codename Lisa (talk) 16:19, 4 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the explanation. Do these instructions about VisualEditor and aliases exist anywhere on WP or WM aside from this talk page? I'm happy to follow instructions, but it is unreasonable to expect editors to magically know how new features work when there is no documentation of those features. In any event, as you describe it, the TemplateData would not have worked for all citation parameters even before my edits, since the editor(s) who added the TemplateData section failed to include all of the available aliases.


 * I disagree with your note about changes outside the JSON area. MOS:STABILITY says "editors should not change an article from one of those styles to another without a good reason" (emphasis added). We have a good reason for changing these examples, and the documentation, as explained in detail in the RFC discussion linked above. Providing consistency among multi-word parameters in documentation and examples reduces editor confusion. Just the other day, an editor wasted time reverting a valid change that I had made because the documentation was inconsistent.


 * I will reinstate my changes per the RFC outcome, and I will attempt to carefully add aliases where they are needed avoid changing the TemplateData section. If you find any minor errors in the resulting edits, please fix them instead of reverting, since, as you say above, that's all you have to do. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:41, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅. I have reinstated my original changes to align the citation template documentation with the RFC outcome while preserving the changes made subsequent to my original edits. I have not touched the TemplateData sections (AFAIK, except to remove outdated explanations of how "et al." works). I would be happy to improve them to make them consistent with the rest of the documentation and the RFC outcome, but I would like to educate myself first about how to avoid compromising the integrity of the JSON code. I would appreciate any links to documentation.


 * I see that has added aliases to the TemplateData sections, and  has made some helpful changes to update how date and year are handled. Thanks for those improvements. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:18, 4 December 2014 (UTC)


 * It occurs to me to wonder, now that Editor Codename Lisa has added aliases, if we shouldn't exchange non-hyphenated parameter names with the hyphenated alias version so that the first option is always the hyphenated name. Here is a modified snippet from :
 * "author-link": {
 * "label": "Author link",
 * "description": "Title of existing Wikipedia article about the author; can suffix with a numeral to add additional authors",
 * "type": "wiki-page-name",
 * "aliases": ["authorlink"]
 * },


 * And here is a slightly related question: what can we do about this duplication of documentation? It seems completely pointless to me for us to be maintaining two different sets of documentation with two different formatting requirements.  Surely there's a better way.  Who has responsibility for template data?


 * And I have more questions: Why is it necessary to have separate template data information for things like lastn where n is capable of being a very lasge number? Similarly, why repeat documentation in template data for numbered parameters like last2, last3, last4, etc.? last1 and other 1 parameters are unique because they are aliases of their unnumbered selves.


 * With so many parameters shared between the various CS1 and CS2 templates why shouldn't we set up a single documentation source, sort of like and use that to feed both the human readable template documentation and template data?


 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 19:17, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Trappist, this might be a good point at which to move this discussion off of my talk page, since it is about the citation templates in general instead of about my "reckless blind", terrible, horrible, "dangerous beyond all imagination", no good, very bad editing skills. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:25, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Hello again. I am not here to teach you stuff that you can find in help files already. (If I could find them and become a user with templateeditor right, you can too.) But the rule of thumb is: The criteria for change to TemplateData is that they must work as intended. Fail this criteria and the result is a revert. You didn't test this criteria, but that's your fault not mine.


 * But again, I see that you are misread my message and overlooked the word "notwithstanding". Template area in Wikipedia is so critical that cannot afford idiosyncrasies of one editor alone; speak to him/her politely and resolve your dispute locally. An edit that affects millions of editors is not warranted.


 * Best regards,
 * Codename Lisa (talk) 04:04, 5 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I will ignore your insults and non sequiturs and repeat my request: Please provide a link to information about how to determine if changes to TemplateData files will cause problems. I told you above what I had found and that I successfully tested the resulting code using a tool linked from that page. I am politely requesting that you stop biting this TemplateData newbie and provide a simple link. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:12, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

OK, now I need some help from my talk page stalkers. The edits I made to a number of template documentation pages have been reverted multiple times by despite my careful explanations above, my links to the relevant RFC closure in my edit summaries, and my careful attention to 's explanation of the TemplateData section above. As it stands now, the template documentation pages are not in conformance with the RFC closure.

has also reverted my edits that correctly removed information about the templates' display of nine authors, with no explanation of why that inaccurate information should remain in the template documentation.

I try not to get involved in edit wars, but at this point, I think I'm in the middle of one. In your judgment, am I doing something wrong? What is your advice? – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:02, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
 * My friend, God has placed a brain in your skull and Wikimedia foundation has given you sandboxing. Use them! Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 04:05, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

November GOCE drive
Just wondering if Awards have been distributed on this drive yet? Let me know if I can help do a few! --Bddmagic (talk) 15:16, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Not yet. Should be today or tomorrow. The stats page is done. If you know any template coding, I'm thinking (but not for this month's awards) about developing a template to make drive award delivery easier. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:50, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Alan Jones
Hi, thanks for the ref fix on AJ's page. I was in the process of doing it but you were there at the same time which produced an edit conflict and confused me! (Not difficult). Regards Eagleash (talk) 21:54, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry about the edit conflict. I usually check the edit history before I do an extensive edit, but for quick fixes like that one, I am usually running at a pace of one or two edits per minute, just enough time to check the preview and save. There are so many little errors out there.... – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:31, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
 * No problem it took me a couple of mins. to spot what was wrong. It's weird when the refs don't show up on preview....so you don't realise you've messed up till after you've saved. Eagleash (talk) 00:11, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
 * If you're editing the whole article, refs should show up when you Preview. If you're editing a section and want to see the refs in a Preview, you need to add this to your vector.js file to get an extra button:

importScript('User:Anomie/ajaxpreview.js'); // Linkback: User:Anomie/ajaxpreview.js
 * //Add button to edit screen to Preview with references


 * It works for me, anyway. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:27, 11 December 2014 (UTC)


 * That would be very useful. However i have no idea what a vector.js file is... :P Eagleash (talk) 02:45, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Click on the link above, create the page, and paste the two lines of code into the page and save it. Then go to an article and edit a section. You should see a new "Ajax Preview" button between Save and Preview. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:35, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Excellent; got it right the second time of trying too! Seems to work fine. Thanks. Regards. Eagleash (talk) 10:55, 11 December 2014 (UTC)


 * On the subject of ref fixes, there's one here. It's ref No 10 (the one with text inserted) whatever I try doesn't work so I've left it as I found it. Thanks. Eagleash (talk) 14:54, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I resolved it in the way that made the most sense to me. Another editor may have taken a different approach. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:32, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Makes perfect sense to me. Eagleash (talk) 21:36, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

December 2014 GOCE newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:15, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

GOCE holiday 2014 newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:44, 24 December 2014 (UTC)