User talk:Rjwilmsi/Archives/2012/January

Incorrect cite completion on Artificial heart

I've fixed the cite title. The edit in question was: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Artificial_heart&diff=463363432&oldid=461803734 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beefman (talk • contribs)

Thanks for letting me know. The problem was previously reported to me but since the NY Daily News have changed their site back again there's not much I can do about it now to understand exactly what they changed. Thanks Rjwilmsi 20:54, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Edits breaking pictures

In this edit [1] all the images where broken. Not sure if it is an isolated problem.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:16, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

You make so many edits I am not sure how to check. It seems the issue occurs if there is alt text Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:18, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

It seems there's a bug in the AWB genfixes over bracket correction, which I'll investigate. Rjwilmsi 17:20, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

That fixes the spurious brackets that AWB was trying (and failing) to fix on the article. Rjwilmsi 17:28, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

 Done rev 7901 AWB's bracket fixing logic tightened. This problem could only have occurred when an article had two stray square braces, and also used image links over multiple lines. Thank you for reporting it to me so it could be fixed. Rjwilmsi 17:56, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Request for Interview Regarding Wikipedia Bots

Greetings-

My name is Randall Livingstone, and I am a graduate student at the University of Oregon, currently collecting data for my dissertation on Wikipedia editors who create and use bots and assisted editing tools, as well as editors involved in the initial and/or ongoing creation of bot policies on Wikipedia. As a member of the bot community and bot operator, I would very much like to interview you for the project at a time and in a method that is most convenient for you (Gchat, another IM client, Skype, email, telephone, etc.). I am completely flexible and can work with your schedule. The interview will take approximately 30-45 minutes.

My dissertation project has been approved both by the Institutional Review Board (IRB) at the University of Oregon, and by the Research Committee at the Wikimedia Foundation. You can find more information on the project on my meta page.

Please let me know if you have any questions, and I look forward to hearing from you to set up a time to chat. Thank you very much.

Randall Livingstone, School of Journalism & Communication, University of Oregon

UOJComm (talk) 04:25, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Second Opinion

Could you look at the edits by an anonymous IP for the article Eulophia petersii and Dendrophylax lindenii. He claims he is citing sources but I'd like a second opinion on how blind I am about his sources. :-D CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 17:51, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)Reverting 47 edits was, at the very least, clumsy and inappropriate. Please review WP:BITE and WP:AGF. If you are concerned about the additions made by the IP editor, "citation needed" tags would have been a better option. The IP editor did indeed include references in their edits, just not after each statement. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 23:42, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

It's not normally my area to patrol others' edits. In this one, if I were to intervene, it looks like the information is genuine and good faith, so I'd put {{citation needed}} up to a handful of times as needed on the articles, and try to discuss with the IP whether they could share/help to provide sources for their content. A straight revert seems over the top unless you are sure that the information is deliberately inaccurate, advertising spam or a copyvio. Rjwilmsi 10:07, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

John Henry Devereux

Would you tweak the citations, please. Thank you. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:54, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not clear what you mean, in what sense would you like the cites tweaked? Rjwilmsi 09:55, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

The citations are complete (I think), but apparently there are issues as to form and format. See Template:Did you know nominations/John Henry Devereux. Any suggestions or corrections that would resolve those issues would be appreciated. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 10:34, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Possible probelm

RjwilmsiBot made these changes to my edits. I don't see any difference. :- ) DCS 13:21, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Three hyphens were changed to en-dashes in the page ranges of the cites, per MOS:DASH. Thanks Rjwilmsi 13:48, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Aaaarrrrggggghhhhh.  Everyday I get a new surprise here. Thank {deity|select one} for Bots.  Thanks, I think. :- ) DCS 20:52, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Blank lines

Why does Rjwilmsibot add an extra blank line between the categories and the stub template? (Example.) I was not aware that double blank lines are needed or recommended here. GregorB (talk) 22:28, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

This is a standard AWB genfixes feature, recommended by Wikipedia:IDEALSTUB. Rjwilmsi 23:22, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

16 and Pregnant

Seriously concerned over the bot adding persondata to 16 and Pregnant. [2] — Moe ε 05:23, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the error report. It was the {{blp sources}} tag that caused the match. rev 7923 adds an exception so it won't occur again. Thanks Rjwilmsi 08:01, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing that up. :) — Moe ε 09:59, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Incorrect parsing of article to complete citations

Hey, your bot keeps adding Passed To as the authors first and last name in citations. Passed to clearly isn't the author, but how the info was received by the news service. Hopefully this can be an easy fix! Thanks! Jeancey (talk) 23:39, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Now fixed, exception added to logic, thank you. I found another five articles affected, which I've corrected too. Rjwilmsi 07:51, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

{{cite web}} changed to {{cite news}} for a blog entry

In this edit to Naomi Wolf the bot changed {{cite web}} to {{cite news}} for a reference to the home page of Naomi Wolf's blog at Huffington Post. I wouldn't characterize it that way, of course. But this may be the kind of semantic distinction that is difficult for a bot. M.boli (talk) 16:32, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

I'll investigate how I can exclude such links from the cite news conversion. Rjwilmsi 09:00, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 January 30#Template:Persondata

The Persondata template has been listed for deletion or modification at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 January 30#Template:Persondata. Since your bot does a lot of changes to persondaya and would need to be modified if the template is deleted or modifed I am leaving this notice. --Kumioko (talk) 16:33, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

PDF vs HTML

In a citation in Evolution of Mammals, #30 at this writing, I linked to this pdf; Figure 2 in the article beautifully sources statements I added in my edit of 28 January 2012 at 00:07. The figure takes up most of a page in the pdf.

Your modification of the reference replaced the pdf link with this link to an HTML page of the article. Figure 2, which I regard as so important, was reduced to thumbnail size; none of the captions are all legible. To be sure, one can obtain a larger display by positioning the mouse pointer over the tiny image, but not everyone knows enough to do this. I didn't, until someone showed me in discussing this matter.

What is the reason for the change?

Assuming that you have no objection, I would like to change the link so that it again points to the pdf. If your edit (which uses parameters that I do not understand) provided additional aids to users following up the reference, I would appreciate advice as to how to retain them. Also, I hope that you can advise how to discourage other well-meaning users of AWB, whatever that is, from replacing the pdf link again.

Peter M. Brown (talk) 02:05, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

It is my understanding that the PDFs generated by pubmedcentral are not permanent links, only the HTML ones are. Perhaps if you link to this HTML link to section 2 that will achieve what you want with a permanent link? Rjwilmsi 08:48, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I didn't know that. I've returned the reference to my original code but used a link provided by the Royal Society of London, not pubmedcentral. Any other concerns? Peter M. Brown (talk) 13:20, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

That's not quite what I think is right. The purpose of my edit was to add the PMID and PMC identifiers so that readers can access the paper and related information (cited by, other papers from same author etc.) from those sites. On reflection I can see that conversion of a pubmedcentral PDF URL to a PMC HTML link is not ideal when figures or diagrams are in use, so I'll adjust the logic I use to not remove the URLs, but still add the identifiers. What I would like to see for this cite is the PMID and PMC identifiers, and your choice of PDF URL. That should then be the best of both worlds. Thanks Rjwilmsi 17:54, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Fine with me. Peter M. Brown (talk) 16:38, 31 January 2012 (UTC)