User talk:Rjwilmsi/Archives/2011/July

hydroxyzine pam

i was wondering something i just got a new meds it is called hydroxyzine pam 25mg it is for stress i was wondering is it safe i also read the side effects and it said it could cause alot of things i dont remember but i am really scared to take it after reading the side effect what should i do — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.85.5.109 (talk) 19:20, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

You would have to speak to the doctor that prescribed you with the medication. Rjwilmsi 14:47, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Old errors

BTW, I found a bunch of weird errors (see [1]) made by your bot/script back in December. Are those fixed in the bot? Anyway you can systematically fix the affected articles? Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 20:03, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

I found and fixed about another 10 instances across 6 articles. That's all I could find. Rjwilmsi 21:10, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Cool. I don't think there was much than that. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 23:27, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

List of things you might want to go through

I've compiled lists of articles which have citations containing urls that could be converted to their parameters version (aka |url=http://www.jstor.org/stable/NUMBERS → |jstor=NUMBERS). Since you're running various bots/scripts for citations, I thought I might let you know.

Some caveats, these conversions should (at least for now) not be made on {{cite web}}, but all others are fair game. Whenever there's a conversion, |accessdate= should also be removed, since they'll be irrelevant and hidden (and might introduce errors later on if someone adds a URL, but doesn't bother updating the accessdate).

I've included my regexes, but you might want to run your own too.

• User:Headbomb/JSTOR
• User:Headbomb/OSTI
• User:Headbomb/OL
• User:Headbomb/SSRN

I might build more lists for other parameters later. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 04:26, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

benzodiazepine overdose

In Benzodiazepine overdose 69.165.139.174 has replaced "nitrazepam and flunitrazepam" from the ref by "temazepam", and "benzodiazepines" by "temazepam". Ref says no word about temazepam. This is insidious vandalism. Please proofread the statements against references in his changes. It was exactly cited to the reference before, he has done exactly the same before. It was reason for a deep revert. He adds statements to temazepam article too, which are misrepresenting the reference. 70.137.158.132 (talk) 06:35, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

This bot sure make it harder to move a page

Trying to conform tennis players names to official ATP and WTA English is sure harder when this bot sticks on a "Categories: Redirects from titles without diacritics" on every redirect page. Someone moves the page to a diacritical version and sometimes before we can move it back this bot adds a catagory which makes the move back impossible without an administrator. Not very good imho. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:27, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

The bot operates an approved task to tag redirects. Currently as you say page moves over redirects with an edit history are not permissible by non-admins, I would be in favour of extending this to permit non-admin page moves with a bot-only edit history, this would be the ideal generic solution to the issue you raise, whether this can be done I don't know. You mention "before we can move it back" – if the bot implemented a rule of not tagging a recently created redirect would this reduce your issue? If yes what suitable recentness check would be needed? 1 month maybe? Is there a particular category of tennis players on the target page of the redirect that the bot could apply this recentness rule to? Thanks Rjwilmsi 21:22, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

The non-admin moves over bot-only edits would be perfect. That way the bot could do it's approved job while not restraining editors. It would certainly reduce the issue if it waited 1 month however there are thousands of tennis pages and no one watches every one... especially a recently created one that no one may notice for 6 months. I would say there is no particular category of tennis player or tournament name since we check ATP and WTA official sites for spelling preferences, as well as the press, books, google, evening news, etc... And since they are not consistent themselves we look at it case by case. So one month is fair, since I'd hate to wait longer to put that tag in, but it will only solve about 50% of the problem. Some problems occurred 2 years ago and we're only getting to them now. Of course there's only been one edit to those two year old redirects.... this bot. Your first solution would be the best if it could actually be done. Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:14, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

And it's not just tennis players. It's widely a pain. I suggest at least a 1 month delay while you work on other approach. Dicklyon (talk) 01:15, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Journal issue numbering (again)

The previous discussion of this got pushed into the archive, so I will ask again: why do you persist in adding issue numbers (specifically, to citations of Science) where they are not useful, and (arguably) contrary to the initial style of the article? You previously claimed that 96% of such citations have such numbering, but I say that is crap when 1) articles are supposed to be internally consistent, not necessarily with the generality of Wikipedia, and 2) that number largely reflects your efforts in changing the choice of the orginal editor(s). I don't mind you taking a whack at them (on the principle of being bold), but once you've been reverted would you mind just leaving alone? - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:37, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

In our previous discussion you did not say that you reverted any of my edits (you have today reverted edits on The Evolution of Cooperation and Seattle Fault). I am not aware of a citation style to not include issue numbers. I'm willing to have a discussion of the use of issue number in general but your comment above suggests you are only concerned with the two articles you reverted me on. I suggest on those two articles to add |issue=<!--not required--> to the relevant Science citations such that no issue number is shown and so that I do not pick them up again to add the issue number, and so that other related tools and scripts, some of which I also use, don't add the issue numbers either. I do not think this is the overall appropriate action but propose it to address the specific concern on these specific articles. Rjwilmsi 01:06, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I think that might be reasonable. I am of the opinion that issue numbers with Science are globally useless, and don't want them forced on me, but where others might want them I am disinclined to make an issue of it. There are bigger issues to work on. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:24, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

pasting in awb

When pasting the cursor moves on the right x places, where x is the number of break lines of the pasted text. -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:31, 29 July 2011 (UTC)