User talk:Rjwilmsi/Archives/2008/June

Invite
Hello Rjwilmsi,

Thanks for fixing the typo on my wiki drummer page! Since you are an editor, I'm trying to get in touch with you (on your usertalk page), to see if you know how to change the photo on my profile? I tried to contact Mel Etitis, but the e-mail he gave me no longer works. If you will do this for me, I'd be grateful. Please e-mail me at pgolddrums@aol.com, and I'll return your e-mail with the PIC I would like put up. Thanks, All the Best, Paul —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.244.42.91 (talk) 06:41, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I've never uploaded an image myself so suggest you follow Upload. Thanks Rjwilmsi (talk) 09:41, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Hello again, "HELP" It appeared that you fixed a typo. I know you didn't upload an image, But, I was wondering if you could change the existing image. Somehow the original image got removed. Can you help me with a new one, or at least put the old one back up? Thanks, Paul e-mail: pgolddrums@aol.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.244.42.90 (talk) 05:11, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

WP:HAU
Hello yet again. I regretfully inform you that the bot we were using to update the user status at Highly Active Users, SoxBot V, was blocked for its constant updating. With this bot out of operation, a patch is in the works. Until that patch is reviewed and accepted by the developers, some options have been presented to use as workarounds: 1) Qui monobook (not available in Internet Explorer); 2) User:Hersfold/StatusTemplate; 3) Manually updating User:StatusBot/Status/USERNAME; or 4) Not worry about it and wait for the patch to go through, which hopefully won't take long. If you have another method, you can use that, too. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. Useight (talk) 22:25, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Baseball articles
Hiya. Umm... you've been marking a lot of 19xx in baseball articles as uncategorised, even though they're categorised (I think the category is being inherited from a template or something...). I know Addshore has been having issues with these pages using his bot - perhaps you two can put your heads together and come up with a solution ? CultureDrone (talk) 20:31, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Categories aren't really my thing, that's just an AWB 'general fix'. Perhaps there's a bug. I'll avoid this on baseball articles just in case. Thanks Rjwilmsi (talk) 20:33, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

A note on spelling
You appear to be using AWB to change the spelling of "succeeded" (as in royal succession) to "succeded". This is an incorrect spelling. Just a friendly heads-up. Ford MF (talk) 22:48, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing out my mistake. The problem was that there were three weird characters (display as a dash in Notepad++) in the article which meant that succeeded appeared as 'suc-ceeded', so 'ceeded' was being fixed to 'ceded'. I've now removed them and all is well. Thanks Rjwilmsi (talk) 06:13, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Notability of Scott Holden
A tag has been placed on Scott Holden requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article appears to be about a real person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable. If this is the first page that you have created, then you should read the guide to writing your first article.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the article (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Padillah (talk) 15:37, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Language tags
Hello. I noticed that you have added language tags to a number of articles like Antoine Clot or some Angoulême comics festival articles. These tags do'nt seem to have any effect (page looks the same, no categories added) and make the page more cluttered when editing. I'm removing them from the^Angoulême pages but will leave the rest alone for now. Could you please explain what the benefit of these tags is? Fram (talk) 07:21, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
 * They are added so that the enclosed text is tagged as foreign-language so AWB knows not to apply the English list of typo fixes to the text. If you remove the language tags it means the article may be incorrectly 'fixed'. Thanks Rjwilmsi (talk) 07:31, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Has this been discussed anywhere? We should not (in my opinion) add tags to articles that do nothing but improve the working of some automated tool. The tags are a nuisance when editing (certainly for newbies), since anything that interrupts the normal reading makes editing harder. If this means that AWB needs to be changed or that people using it have to be more careful, so be it. I do wonder how you (or AWB) decided which titles to tag like that. When I look at this, Le curé was perhaps tagged because it shouldn't be corrected to "cure" (butis curé really a usual misspelling of cure?), and I have no idea why the second title was tagged (les instead of less? I hope not, since that would make Les Paul rather angry :-) ). Thanks for the quick reply, by the way. Fram (talk) 07:53, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
 * In my opinion adding these tags is correct, as it highlights to all editors (AWB and others) that the enclosed text is in a foreign language so shouldn't be corrected based on English spelling. Also, it sets the encoding languages for browsers so that languages with different alphabets display correctly (this is in the Wikipedia manuals but I can't find the link ATM). In the above example jugement would be corrected to 'judgement' if it were an English word, so tagging this prevents this (in AWB, WikEd) and warns editors (otherwise). On this basis all foreign-language text should be tagged (if I had a button to do it I would...). If I (manually) didn't tag all foreign words in an article it's because Wikipedia is a work in progress ;) Thanks Rjwilmsi (talk) 09:30, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Looking at template:Lang, the crucial bit to me is the end of the intro: "such subtags should only be added if there is an important reason to use them." I don't think the prevention of incorrect spelling corrections is sucha crucial reason, seeing that in most of these articles, no errors were made in the years they contained French text and had no such tags (e.g. there were no spelling corrections, automated or manual, on Antoine Clot between October 2006 and the time you tagged the book titles. So it looks to me like you are making edits without benefit (since there is no evidence that there is actually a problem) and with a slight disadvantage (they are annoying for the casual editor). For titles, you often already have the combination of double ' and double [. Adding double { to this makes it even harder to read. Fram (talk) 11:42, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for finding the right link. Comments:


 * 1) spell checkers are clearly listed under the Rationale  section, . i.e. it explicitly authorises the use of language tags as I have been doing.
 * 2) my interpretation of the guidance is that subtags are ISO codes for regional variations of a language as opposed to the main language, so the page simply says use ISO 639-1 over 639-2 (which I have been doing).
 * 3) If formatting in the above articles is confusing to editors, I think it's because there are items in bold italics, and it's my understanding that this formatting goes against the WP:MOS.

Thanks Rjwilmsi (talk) 18:19, 5 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I'll start a discussion at WT:MOS about this, since I think there are arguments for both our positions and I would like some more input on this. You are of course more than welcome to give yur input there as well. Oh, and the Manual of Style itself uses bold italics, so I don't think this is against the rules. In a page like Les Misérables, you have to do it this way in the intro, and it can be useful later in the text. Fram (talk) 18:50, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I didn't mean bold italics are bad per se, I just meant that their use in the body of the above articles didn't seem correct. Anyway, there's certainly no harm in a further discussion on language tags; at a minimum template:lang could be clarified. Rjwilmsi (talk) 18:53, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The discussion has highlighted a few further benefits of the tags, so I'll no longer dispute their usefulness or oppose any use of them. Sorry for bothering you, but I honestly didn't see any significant benefit at the time. Keep up the good work! Fram (talk) 18:37, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Brighton College
Thank you very much for your typo and spelling fixes on this article, it is a usually thankles task to perform, and I am deeply grateful for your effort. I made lots of those spelling errors as I'm dyslexic, so it's hard for me to notice mistakes. Philip.t.day (talk) 10:01, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
 * No problem, it's easy with WP:AWB/T. Rjwilmsi  17:11, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Automated I?
The user page for Rjwilmsi uses "I" to describe automated tasks undertaken by a machine; this is emphasized my by the concession that the scripts being run may erroneously change spelling of non-English words. It would be the same to say I for the acts performed by a trained animal in your possession- 'I caught the Frisbee in my mouth.', 'I peed on the fire hydrant', 'I bit the postman.'  Or, in the case of an inanimate tool, for a sword smith to describe the manipulation of her blade by another, 'I pierced his lung, then took four of the fingers formerly on his left hand as he vainly attempted to stop the harbinger of death.'   Of course, the tool maker might claim deeds perpetrated using her creation -'I killed all those children in Hiroshima'- depending on context to make clear that this is an assertion of responsibility by the bomb maker. (anyway, that's just my rationalization; it just sounds weird to me- like the inventor of an automated envelope making machine talking about possible complications with her machine, 'I may not cut the card-stock completely, so the roller may jam when I attempt to pull a double card before I lift the foot plate', etc)

Addendum: why are these edits not tagged as a bot?

Mavigogun (talk) 04:58, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * As I still make the odd mistake reviewing each spelling correction to an article, I put the info on my talk page to explain what I'm trying to do. Thanks Rjwilmsi  06:41, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Isn't this statement disingenuous? Your automation is typically making 4-5 actions per minute- are you suggesting that you could possibly have time to review each of those? Ahh.... me thinks you misinterpreted the above entry... I wasn't questioning your spelling choices, but the ego identification, expressed on YOUR user page, with the acts of the automation. Take care. Mavigogun (talk) 07:11, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Doubling consonants with a suffix
Hi. Over the past week, I've noticed edits you've made replacing valid Canadian spellings on Canadian articles with (valid) American spellings instead. Per policy, valid spelling choices should not be changed if the article is primarily related to a location with a specific variant of English. The specific issue in my case is the change from targetting to targeting, and targetted to targeted. Per policy, and considering American and British English spelling differences, could you remove this "mis-spelling" from your script. Thank you. Mind matrix  18:25, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * It's not my intention to correct regional variations of spelling (I'm British btw). In the case of 'targetting' [sic] and 'targetted' [sic] I specifically checked the OED and wiktionary and the 'double t' variant is not listed. I've now checked dictionary.com and it's not there either. On this basis I don't think my edits are incorrect. Please advise if you have a link for these words. Rjwilmsi  18:38, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * It's something I see fairly frequently too, like all over the website of the British government (e.g. ). I don't know how the OED works with regionalisms and I don't have mine handy right now ... I'd say it's a judgment call either way.  Ford MF (talk) 18:53, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Tallahassee Scorpions
Hello, I was wondering what spelling corrections and such that you made to this article? When I wrote it I was pretty sure that I had ran a spell check on it. I am just curious so that I can add whatever it was to my spell check to keep it from happening. Asatruar (talk) 17:32, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * See for yourself – I made a grammar fix.  Rjwilmsi  21:20, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

WP:ENGVAR
Nothing personal but you are the latest person who has used some automatic editing device to change the (British) spelling of "occuring" to (US) "occurring" on After Dark (TV series). As I understand it this goes against WP:ENGVAR, so do you happen to know how to stop this from happening again (i.e. some kind of invisible mark which tells the software, don't be too quick, this spelling is intended and may even be correct) AnOpenMedium (talk) 16:14, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't change British to American spelling, and if it's relevant I'm English. In the concise OED, wiktionary and Merriam Webster  'occuring [sic]' with a single 'r' is not listed. Please provide a source if you think 'occuring [sic]' is a valid word, or if the spelling is in a quoted source, add a  [sic] tag to it. Thanks  Rjwilmsi  17:05, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I think I am going letter blind. You are - of course - absolutely correct. Many apologies. AnOpenMedium (talk) 11:55, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Scientific names
I think it is a huge mistake to be tagging scientific names of plants and animals as Latin. Scientific names can have Latin, Greek or other roots, just like the names of people, places, etc. Will you be tagging all uses of the term Antonia Banderas as Spanish? In Australia there is a place called the Houtman Abrolhos; it was named by a Dutchman but the name makes use of a Dutch loan word of Portuguese origin. Will you tag all uses of Houtman Abrolhos as Portuguese? or Dutch? Where do you draw the line between a foreign word and an English loan word?

But I'm getting off topic. I'm here to say that the scientific names of plants should not be tagged as Latin language terms. Hesperian 07:37, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Per Template:Lang it's the language/alphabet of the word(s) not the root that matters. These scientific names are in Latin, no matter how the Latin is derived/created, so tagging them as Latin is correct. For Banderas/Australia, these could be usefully tagged as screen readers could then pronounce them correctly as Spanish/Dutch versus English (though perhaps the Australian place is correctly pronounced as in English...).
 * The 'line' for foreign words used in English is the Oxford English Dictionary.
 * FYI there has been some discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style. Thanks Rjwilmsi  11:29, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

A scientific name published by an English-speaking person in an English-language journal, derived from a Greek root, and used by all botanists irrespective of their native language and the language in which they are writing, qualifies as Latin how? Hesperian 11:46, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * From Scientific_name: "The genus name and specific descriptor may come from any source...However, names are always treated grammatically as if they were a Latin phrase." Seems clear to me. Thanks Rjwilmsi  14:21, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


 * "are always treated grammatically as if they were a Latin phrase," is not usually translated as "they are Latin language words," that's why, when this phrase is used, it always carefully distinguishes and clarifies that what is Latin about the words is their grammar--this is simply for the process of getting words into the correct gender and number. So, please, don't translate "treated grammatically as Latin" into "is the Latin language," if the latter were correct, it would be used.  But it's not.  What is correct is "treated gramatically as Latin."  Athenian?  Attic?--Blechnic (talk) 18:54, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Addendum: Blechnic is correct. The source you have quoted is describing the rules for construction of new names, not grammatical use of the name itself.  In the way the scientific names are constructed, they are treated as if they were Latin, but once the name exists it is not used as a Latin word or phrase. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:23, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Rjwilmsi, there is plenty of extra information on this coming out at WT:PLANTS, along with clear consensus that tagging scientific names in this way is a very bad idea. Hesperian 03:04, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Balboa High School (San Francisco)
reverted your change which damaged the reference, please be more careful. The date you changed to ISO format is part of the URL= in the cite template, not part of the cite template archivedate= field. – Zedla (talk) 22:19, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * My apologies, I've corrected my find & replace list. Thanks Rjwilmsi  22:27, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Ancient Greek
Please be more careful. Capitalizing as Ancient Greek is often pretentious unless the language is meant; and there the dialect (Attic Greek, Ionic Greek, κτλ) may be better. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:34, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Do you have example(s) of incorrect edits of mine relating to 'Ancient Greek' that I can learn from? Thanks Rjwilmsi  22:02, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Both changes on Orion (mythology) were wrong. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:04, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, okay, I see. Thanks, I'll watch out for false positives like that. Rjwilmsi  22:08, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Update: looks like this is a more general problem – the incorrect typo fix has been removed Rjwilmsi  22:51, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Extrasolar planet
Just wanted to let you know about a small mistake spotted in the article Extrasolar planet so that you may verify whether that perhaps occurred also elsewhere. Using AWB you changed "date=Apr 24, 2007 4:23pm ET" to "date=2007-04-24pm ET". I've removed pm ET now. --Eleassar my talk 07:44, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know. I realised yesterday that this might happen (very rarely I think though), but had forgotten to change my find&replace list yesterday evening. I'll change it later (before making any more edits) to comment out bits like that '4:23pm ET' so that the date will display properly. Rjwilmsi  08:49, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Your date linking
Hi. This diff left two references broken, so I reverted the whole edit. Thought you'd want to know. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 22:11, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know. There was an error in my script, which I've now fixed, and have redone the edit. Thanks Rjwilmsi  22:33, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Regarding your edits in Americans Against Hate (Stephen Marks)
Hello, I saw your edits on the page Americans Against Hate (Stephen Marks). It seems that you have tagged the page as uncategorized, using AWB, but the page is categorized. I already removed the template. Just though you'd like to know about this, to avoid any further mistakes. Cheers, Victor Lopes (talk) 21:27, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmm, yes, AWB doesn't see categories included in templates, though in this case the category in the GFDL template doesn't seem appropriate to the template, nor the article. I've posted a comment on the template talk page. Rjwilmsi  21:26, 30 June 2008 (UTC)