User talk:Makyen/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Albert Levy (soldier)

Please come back and take a look. I added a citation that I think is not exactly correct for form. Thanks. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 03:13, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you.

Makyen, Meanwhile Template:Did you know nominations/Albert Levy (soldier) only proves that trying to do a 5X DYK is probably not a good idea. I already knew that, but hope springs eternal. If you have any more additions it would be GREATLY appreciated. I don't mean to sound like an ingrate. It is frustrating to get this close, but I am really burnt out at this point. Running on "E." 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:11, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

No problem.

I can certainly understand the burnt out part. It is clear you have put in quite a bit of effort on the page. It is looking good. Doing 5x DYKs is quite ambitious and inherently entails quite a bit of work.

I will take another look. I'm not sure when I will do so. In general, I have been wanting to pick times when the page is not actively being edited by others so as to reduce the chance of an edit conflict, which if I and they have made a lot of changes is a pain the the butt. The counters to that are, of course, to edit sections instead of the entire article, and save more often. — Makyen (talk) 19:11, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

If you have access to the articles that are mentioned but not cited in the article (including the New York Times and Cleveland Plain Dealer obituaries) that might help. Unfortunatley, I mined about everything there was out of the cited sources (except for the pamphlet/book itself)so I am not optimistic. My fault; my loss. I didn't do this for the DYK, but it would have been a nice bonus. This probably will end up like most of my work in Wikpedia, with nothing to show for it. So be it. Best to you. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:18, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm done there, so have at it. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:19, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Notes on "Yank" Levy

Dear Makyen, I have some suggestions for further modifications on this article. Here. Feel free to use them. Remember to paraphrase, as those are all direct quotes. Believe me whan I say that I think I'd minded about all there was to get for the cited sources in the article. have at it and best wishes. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 21:46, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Speyer wine bottle

I'm not sure you did it, but what we need is a way to have the notes connect to the reference. I thought you did that at "Yank" Levy. If you could help it would be appreciated. Thank you. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 21:31, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Joan Miró Global Challenge — you're invited!

Dear Makyen,
I am glad to invite you to join us in an international Wikipedia editing party. This event, called ‘’Joan Miró Global Challenge’’, will take place next 10th May, and it will consist of a 10-hour Wikipedia editing party, where wikipedians from all around the world will be welcome to edit together to reach the goal of making 10 key articles about Joan Miró and his artworks available in at least 10 languages. More information about the whole project can be found in this post at the Wikimedia Foundation blog.

As you have already worked on articles about Joan Miró, we thought you might be interested. Also, we would appreciate it if you could spread the word and invite the members of your community to participate. I thank you for your help in advance, and will be happy to help if any clarification is needed.

Best regards! --ESM (talk) 18:51, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

nbsp

Hi!

I saw your edit over at Irreducible representation. You might want to now that in the math template, the "nowrap" is automatic, so placing "no break spaces" has no effect, and it would be practically impossible to enforce a policy where explicit "nbsp" is required. The situation is, of course, different outside the math template.

Well, at least this is what I have been told before when I used to nest the "nowrap" and "math" templates.

Best regards, YohanN7 (talk) 08:51, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the information. However, I believe you misunderstood what I did. I did not add non-breaking spaces. I converted hard coded (0xA0) non-breaking spaces, which are visually indistinguishable from a normal space (0x20), into  . This was done in compliance with MOS:NBSP which specifies that such literal hard spaces "should not be used". That is just one of the changes in the set which I currently have configured. Primarily, I am running through the list of pages in the Category:Pages with ISBN errors. On that page the primary reason I showed up was that one of the citations erroneously was stating the ISBN for The Quantum Theory of Fields, Volume 2 was "0-521-55002-7". That ISBN is invalid. After a bit of checking, I found that the most likely correct ISBN for the book being referenced is ISBN 0-521-55002-5. It appeared that the person who entered the ISBN erroneously copied the check-digit.

For changes such as the one to convert hard spaces to an HTML entity, I specifically choose not to make judgements as to the entity being placed somewhere that is not desirable. However, I do look for cases where the use of the character is invalid (e.g. template parameter names). Given that I have no history on the page, I feel it is best to leave it up to the editors who usually edit the page to make the choice as to the use of a non-breaking space in any particular location. However, without the hard coded space being visible it is not possible for most editors to know that they are making such a choices.

In other words, feel free to remove them. I have no vested interest in their existence on that page. Just don't revert what I did as that will not remove the non-breaking spaces. Doing so would leave them on the page but make them visually indistinguishable from a normal space. — Makyen (talk) 09:30, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Aha, now it makes perfect sense. The (0xA0) characters have probably come along with a copy and paste operation, don't you think? I'm just curious, and would like to know. Pressing the space bar shouldn't produce them?

Thanks for fixing the ISBN! YohanN7 (talk) 10:19, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

No problem on the ISBN. Happy to do it.

The first 0xA0 appears to have entered the page at 09:43, 8 July 2013 (UTC). There appears to be only one added at that point and it may, or may not, have been intentional (the location makes it unclear with unintentional more likely in my opinion). I did not check for when the others beyond the first were added. It might have been copy & pasting. However, my experience is that at least on Windows copy & paste can do funny things to 0xA0. It appeared that at least some times it was automatically translated to 0x20. While I have encountered the cut&paste issue I did not, yet, investigate for cases of when it would or would not do so. For the problem I was investigating (failing template parameters) figuring out the exact cause immediately presented a solution (removal or replace with 0x20). I have not had a need to copy&paste them again so I have not investigated that issue further.

How to enter one using the keyboard varies depending on your operating system and application. There is a list of methods available. The easiest, and thus most likely source, appears to be on Mac OS X which is ⌥ Opt+Space. Given that it is only two keys it is something that could have happened by mistake. On Windows the sequence is Alt+0+1+6+0 which at 5 characters and having to move a hand over to the number pad, is not going to happen by mistake.

If you want to look further into when the other 0xA0 characters entered the page, you can use the Revision history search. You will need to enter the 0xA0 character and some text around the ones I changed; for the ones in templates will need to check the "Force searching for wikitext" box. — Makyen (talk) 11:18, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much for an informed answer. I know from experience that this sort of problems can cause bigger problems, even showstoppers for critical applications. At least it was that way before Unicode and XML became more common, though they don't eliminate the problems all together. YohanN7 (talk) 12:00, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

List of rivers discharging into the North Sea

@Makyen, I really approve your work.

Nevertheless I think it is no mistake, to use &_n_b_s_p_; only in positions, where there is a real danger of uncontrolled breaks. Among the first words afer a fixed break or in a box of larger minimal width within a table, it is not necessary.

Thanks, --Ulamm (talk) 10:20, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

@Ulamm: Hello. Thank you.

For more detail please see the discussion on this page immediately above this current one.

The edits I have been making have neither added nor removed non-breaking spaces from articles. What I did was to make the literal hard-coded non-breaking spaces that were already there visible by converting character code 0xA0 to the HTML entity " " which represents that character code. This is in direct compliance with MOS:NBSP which states explicitly: "Do not use the literal hard space or thin space Unicode characters entered directly from the keyboard."

I admit that I have been tempted to remove some of the non-breaking spaces which have been made visible. However, I felt it more appropriate to leave them in – many will have been there for years – and let people more familiar with each specific article make any removals they felt appropriate. However, I will remove them where I see them in positions which will actually break wiki-syntax (e.g. within template names or template parameter names). — Makyen (talk) 11:33, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Rollback

Hello, this is just to let you know that I've granted you Rollback rights. Just remember:

• Rollback gives you access to certain scripts, including Huggle and Igloo, some of which can be very powerful, so exercise caution
• Rollback is only for blatant vandalism
• Having Rollback rights does not give you any special status or authority
• Misuse of Rollback can lead to its removal by any administrator
• Please read Help:Reverting and Wikipedia:Rollback feature to get to know the workings of the feature
• You can test Rollback at Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback
• You may wish to display the {{User wikipedia/rollback}} userbox and/or the {{Rollback}} top icon on your user page

If you have any questions, please do let me know.

HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:25, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

4ims

Hi, I thought I'd reply here to avoid clogging up the permissions board. It sounds like your friend is clearly past the point of warnings. My advice would be to create a subpage in your userspace that (concisely) explains what this person is doing, and use it to log the IP addresses they edit from (starting with as many as you can remember that you've already dealt with), pages they edit, and results of AIV reports. Then report them to AIV next time you see them and link to that page in your report. The more data you can gather, the better admins can deal with the problems—depending on the pattern, semi-protection or rangeblocking might be worth a try. Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:19, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, that sounds like an excellent idea. I will begin to do so. I should have thought about something similar. — Makyen (talk) 22:47, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Eloise Cemetery

Please takek a look at the formatting of the sources. Thank you. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 10:20, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Referencing quality

Can I get your opinion on this recently added reference? <ref name="musicnotes">{{cite web |url=http://www.musicnotes.com/sheetmusic/mtdFPE.asp?ppn=MN0041114 |title=Unsupported Browser or Operating System |publisher=Musicnotes.com |date= |accessdate=2014-03-31}}</ref> It was added here. The editor seems to use Reflinks without bothering to check the changes or fix any problems before blindly hitting "save" and seems oblivious to the amount of junk being created. - 109.176.245.191 (talk) 18:41, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) A lot of people don't check what reflinks gives them. Far too often I see |author=Posted at 22:00, 7 May 2014 (UTC) or similar. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:00, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

NOTE: This question touched on an area about which I have been thinking for some time now. As a result this response is long and expands significantly beyond the question of the above linked specific edit. Feel free to ignore most of this as TL;DR.

Yes, ultimately it is the users responsibility to check the changes they are making to the article, even when the data for the change is collected for them automatically. One of the reasons reflinks is a semi-automated tool instead of a bot is that its results must be checked. However, it could and should produce better results.

The issues I have with the reflinks citation: it appears to have gotten the |url= correct and |accessdate= in an acceptable format. |publisher=Musicnotes.com should be |work=musicnotes.com. |title= is obviously a failure. It clearly lacks available and very desirable information.

The above linked edit is a clear failure on the part of both reflinks and the user. Reflinks has some serious drawbacks and requires a considerable amount of hand editing of its output. It appears to almost completely lack checking for obviously invalid data. Unfortunately, it does not convey the need for user checking of output in a way that actually gets editors to do such checking. In addition, I expect editors use the tool as a substitute for learning what really should go into a citation. When the user does not do checking, it is very often necessary to clean up from the hash that it makes of a reference. I find it very frustrating to have to go behind changes based on reflinks to clean up from its failures. Unfortunately, there is the need to clean up behind multiple automatic and semi-automatic tools. In cleaning up citations for unknown parameters and ISBN errors – and just on my own watchlist – I have many times seen garbage created by reflinks or Citation bot which has existed in pages for years (most recent example I encountered). All of the automated tools have significant deficiencies in scraping pages for reference data. They each could have, and should have, done a better job at determining what data from the page to use for parameter values.

I am currently working on an implementation of page scraping for a new version of Cite4Wiki. Its current page scraping in a default configuration – used on domains/pages for which it does not have a specific profile – produces the following (based primarily on the meta data available on the page linked above) [NOTE: I view both the default config and the tool in general as very much a work in progress.] (prototype; not yet publicly available):

<ref name="C4WDefault-8492875">{{cite web |url=http://www.musicnotes.com/sheetmusic/mtdFPE.asp?ppn=MN0041114 |title=Never Ever |work=musicnotes.com |date=May 30, 2009 |publisher=Universal Music Publishing Group |accessdate=May 7, 2014 |first1=Robert |last1=Jazayeri |first2=Sean |last2=Mather |first3=Shaznay |last3=Lewis |first4=All |last4=Saints |archiveurl=//web.archive.org/web/20140507224937/http://www.musicnotes.com/sheetmusic/mtdFPE.asp?ppn=MN0041114 |archivedate=May 7, 2014 |deadurl=no}}</ref>

Which produces (this was with one click; two clicks if archiving is set to be semi-automatic, not automatic):

Jazayeri, Robert; Mather, Sean; Lewis, Shaznay; Saints, All (May 30, 2009). "Never Ever". musicnotes.com. Universal Music Publishing Group. Archived from the original on May 7, 2014. Retrieved May 7, 2014. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)

This, of course, still needs to be edited. At a minimum "All Saints" should be a single |author4= not split between |first4= and |last4=. Changing it is another click (#2 or #3). [Automatically recognizing "All Saints" as a non-individual name is a partially implemented feature right at the moment.]

I do understand that it is a lot of work to develop page scraping which works well across a large segment of pages. While a generalized solution is possible which produces much better output than the reflinks based edit linked above, what is really needed much of the time is page scraping that is optimized for each individual domain, and sometimes subdomain or subpages of a domain. These often need to be updated when a website changes the format of the data on the page. For a single tool or single developer/developer group to keep this updated and current for any large number of domains is ultimately a losing battle. Having multiple tools – there are a good number of them – that do this is resulting in a large amount of duplicated work where each tool develops scrapes that have variable amounts of success for some (inherently small) set of domains/pages chosen by the developers at the time the tool is written or updated.

In my opinion, what is needed is a way to describe the page scraping process in a data structure which we can have available to multiple tools and capable to be updated regularly by people in general. This will allow changes in scraping configurations – I call them profiles – for individual domains be made and new domains/pages added by users who care about a particular page/domain without the need for the developers of any one tool to update their tool and release a new version. Changes to profiles need to be independent of the update/bug fix process for any one tool.

Defining and implementing such a page scrapping description "language" has been a large amount of what I have been working on for the last few months (some heavily on, but also off and on). My plan is to get the basics done and open it up for input from the community, but I don't feel I am there yet as there is still significant functionality I view as necessary yet to be coded/properly thought through. My experience so far is that I will want to refine how such is described after experimenting with it for a while. — Makyen (talk) 23:52, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Milorganite

Please work your magic. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:09, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Signature

I got your note about my signature. I've already made my signature smaller, so it's now no longer quite so big. I didn't understand what you were saying when you said It can then be rebuilt; smaller, better and with more pleasing color like B5. Could you explain that a bit more, please ? KoshVorlon   Angeli i demoni kruzhili nado mnoj 10:59, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

@KoshVorlon: I was referring to what happened to Babylon 4 (B4) in the Babylon 5 show. I have assumed, based on your user name of KoshVorlon that your are referencing Babylon 5. B4 was the largest of the Babylon stations; it was taken into the past with Jeffrey Sinclair on board to be used in the previous Shadow War. After the disappearance of B4, B5 was built which was smaller, better and had a more pleasing color. — Makyen (talk) 20:06, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

I am a fan, but didn't get the B4 / B5 reference! I've shrunk my signature per the consensus on my talk page as well. Thanks! KoshVorlon   00:11, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

No problem. Thanks for making the change. That is much better. Oh, and to be clear, I don't really have a problem with the color in smaller doses. Mostly, it just fit with the B4/B5 reference. — Makyen (talk) 00:46, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

African Methodist Episcopal Church

What do you know about the African Methodist Episcopal Church. I assume nothing. Let me repeat myself I am a historian statistician for the African Methodist Episcopal church. I have record since the beginning of this great denomination till now. So for you to tell me I'm disrupting Wikipedia know you are disrupting Wikipedia. i'm a member of the African Methodist Episcopal Church. My dad is a clergymen in that in the denomination. I don't think you understand this denomination is all over the world. It's in the United States ,Canada ,Mexico ,South America , Caribbean ,Africa and, Asia. I know how many members and congregations there are. I also know celebrities and notable people that are members of the African Methodist Episcopal denomination. For example the president and first lady, Madame CJ Walker , Frederick Douglass , LL Cool J and ,Rosa Parks. There are others but you have no info about this denomination . I'm an expert . So show me some facts where I'm wrong and Im very sure I'm not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GAP1220 (talk • contribs) 16:02, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

You do not know what you're talking about you foul. you don't know anything about the African Methodist Episcopal Church. Now I do admit the first time when I said the DME church at 2,500,000,000 members I was incorrect on that. But the new numbers I put in are correct and President Barack Obama and Michelle Obama are members of metropolitan African Methodist Episcopal Church. So just deal with it you ignorant son of a idiot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GAP1220 (talk • contribs) 19:30, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Do you know anything about the denomination? — Preceding unsigned comment added by GAP1220 (talk • contribs) 19:34, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) GAP1220: Hello. Thank you for engaging in conversation. Also, thank you for participating in Wikipedia.

It is my hope that having an expert on the African Methodist Episcopal Church who takes direct interest in the article will greatly improve and expand it. However, this has not gotten off to a good start.

You are correct that I know very little about the African Methodist Episcopal Church. However, the issue has been that you have been changing the page to information which was blatantly erroneous. Having 2.5 billion members is obviously in error. That number, along with the 7 million congregations number, which you have been putting in the article are clearly wrong just on the face of the numbers relative the the total population of the Earth. In addition, the assertion that President Obama is a member of the church is directly contradicted by the source at the article you linked. I have updated that source and copied it to the African Methodist Episcopal Church article. I have also found sources for the number of members and congregations. Unfortunately these latter sources are primary sources. This makes them acceptable for basic facts, but not preferred. Primary sources are not permitted to be used for interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims.

Wikipedia is based on information which can be reliably sourced. This means that we should be able to find reliable sources for the facts and assertions entered in articles. While the participation of experts on subjects is very desirable for Wikipedia, the experts themselves can have a difficult job making sure that the information they enter into articles is based on third party reliable sources and is not original research. This is something about which experts have to take especial care. As an expert, you have considerable life experience with the subject. Unfortunately, the vast majority of that experience is original research just because it is your experience. While that experience can guide in the development of the article, you must take special care that it does not lead you to enter information which can not be confirmed based on third party sources.

Further, as a member of the African Methodist Episcopal Church, you may have a conflict of interest. While editing Wikipedia, an editor's primary role is to be a Wikipedian. A conflict of interest is when your relationship to a subject undermines this primary roll while editing Wikipedia. Given the edits you have made to the article, it appears that you do have a conflict of interest relating to the African Methodist Episcopal Church.

An additional point which should be stressed is that your statements about President Obama fall under the biographies of living persons policies which has even more stringent requirements for sourcing of information. Because of the prominence and political nature of President Obama as a subject I believe that all material about him is contentious and must be sourced to reliable sources. The information which you have been entering on African Methodist Episcopal Church about him is directly contradicted by the source which was referenced on the article to which you linked (the reference is now directly on the African Methodist Episcopal Church page). In order to have the claim you are making in the article there needs to be a third party independent source which states that information. — Makyen (talk) 19:52, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

What are you some type of Wikipedia police. Go kick some rocks and know what you're talking about u little scumbag. You know nothing about this denomination you old hussie — Preceding unsigned comment added by GAP1220 (talk • contribs) 20:00, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

One of the five pillars of Wikipedia is that "All articles must strive for verifiable accuracy, citing reliable, authoritative sources, especially when the topic is controversial or is on living persons. Editors' personal experiences, interpretations, or opinions do not belong." If what you mean by "Wikipedia police" is that we remove information with is clearly inaccurate or contradictory to cited sources, then yes, all Wikipedians are Wikipedia police. — Makyen (talk) 20:22, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Your AWB work on Donizetti and (now) Verdi articles

Hi: I'm curious about something, since I'm the most likely "culprit" when it comes to using the simple HTML < b r > (space added to reveal the code) versus < b r / >. The effect seems to be exactly the same in the look when uploaded, so I wonder why everyone seems to want the " / " added???? Viva-Verdi (talk) 10:13, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Most of the reasons I have seen mentioned are that it is not technically valid if it dose not have the "/" at the end (e.g. <br/>). For me, it a practical issue that the syntax highlighter gadget does not understand that <br> is a self closing tag (having a closing BR tag (e.g. </br>) is actually forbidden in the specification). If you have the syntax highlighter gadget turned on while editing a page with <br> elements instead of <br/> the colors for tags begin at a <br> but never end. This results in the syntax highlighting being detrimental to editing the page instead of helpful. It also contributes to performance problems with the gadget. Even though I don't have any association with that gadget (other than as a, sometimes, user), I have been intending to get around to re-writing at least portions of it. I just have not had the time for what looks like not a quick fix.

So, I added a find and replace rule to those I use with AWB. In addition to the change being helpful for the above reason, the HTML purists appear to like it. Obviously, adding the "/" to <br> is not a valid reason on its own to be making changes to a page, only as something that gets done with other changes. — Makyen (talk) 12:43, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, Makyen. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 15:28, 17 May 2014 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Nikkimaria (talk) 15:28, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
	For your continued and superlative helpfulness at User talk:ClueBot Commons, on behalf of everyone whose CB3 issues you've cleaned up. Thanks! BethNaught (talk) 11:24, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Citation Barnstar
	Beautifully done. "Yank" Levy would thank you, and so do I. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:09, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Editor's Barnstar
	Elegantly done. "Yank" Levy would thank you, and so do I. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:11, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	Thank you for correcting the multiple-author cititations, ISBN numbers, typos, and other details. I'm grateful for your help in getting this page in order! Netherzone (talk) 12:08, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Mercedes-Benz W222: Il-hun Yoon

Thank you pointing that out to me, but I must say it is quite muddled. Mercedes-Benz and Daimler AG personnel have also personally commented that Robert Lesnik was not present when design development for the W222 began in 2007. Design chief Gorden Wagener is not even listed for obvious reasons, as he only approved the final production version. I have cited such photos and now also videos, as Robert Lesnik did not arrive there until late in design development in 2009. The final W222 design was approved in 2009, after added input was made by Lesnik.

In the photograph dated prior to April 22, 2009, Yoon along with design chief Gorden Wagener were present. Lesnik was nowhere in sight. Yoon was also featured in numerous documentaries regarding exterior design of the W222. For whatever internal reasons/politics, the Mercedes-Benz marketing department has officially chosen to represent Lesnik as the responsible designer and not Yoon, who also designed the R172 SLK in 2007-early 2008. I have my suspicions for that, but would rather not say and feel it's irrelevant. Myself in now working for JLR, have seen similar instances in the auto industry, where the wrong person gets full credit for design work. I am busy at the moment, but I will provide my proof soon.Carmaker1 (talk) 22:40, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Your edit summary at Talk:Yank Barry

It's about those "strange things". ("Reduce target size of archives. Strange things start to happen when pages get past 256kiB. Reduced to avoid that possibility"). I set up archiving for talk pages from time to time and if 200K is better then I want to remember that and to also know why. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 14:38, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

First off, after taking a look at my contributions it appears clear that for some reason I was miss-remembering the size at which this issue becomes a problem. I'm not sure how I managed to do that, but this issue is at 512kiB, not 256kiB. I'd like to blame it on something, but it looks like it is just a mistake on my part. Although, the fact that I've been feeling like crap for the last few days did probably contribute.

On a multiple occasions I have cleaned up the mess left by malfunctioning archiving bots. The issues were the results of a variety of problems, usually the archiving template being misconfigured in some manner (ClueBot III is more prone to issues along these lines). For this particular issue, if I recall correctly, I have seen it a couple/few times. Looking through my contributions I only quickly found one instance which was this issue. You can take a look at it in the history of [1]. In all the instances where I have seen this class of problem occur, problems started just after the archive reached 512kiB in length. My assumption has been that the bot is getting an unexpected response from the MediaWiki software to an inquiry or save which is causing it to malfunction. — Makyen (talk) 00:45, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you

I'm not sure how I blanked that stuff. Thank you for fixing it. The Transhumanist 20:15, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

No problem. I was happy to help. It appeared very unlikely that it was intentional. — Makyen (talk) 20:38, 30 May 2014 (UTC); [Further explanation from this post has been moved into the Firefox sub-thread.] 18:13, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Firefox issues (e.g. loss of text)

I have experienced a similar problem on a couple of occasions when Firefox crashes while I am editing a section of a page. When Firefox restarts, if I just continue editing the section then the entire page is, or other sections are, blanked except for the section I was editing. I always have to be careful to go back to viewing the page, re-initiate the section edit and copy-and-paste the as-edited content into the new section edit session. This is even though Firefox, upon restart, usually brings up the section edit with as-edited content and everything appears completely normal as if it would be correct to just continue editing (i.e. edit box and "Show preview" give no indication that it is anything other than a normal section edit; "Show changes" sometimes does, and sometimes does not, indicate a problem). This problem happens every time Firefox crashes while editing a page section (way too often). It just took twice for me to be certain how it was happening for me (once to see the problem and a second to confirm). — Makyen (talk) 20:38, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

I've encountered this problem so often with Firefox that I now only edit with Google Chrome! Kept dropping material. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:55, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I've considered using Chrome more, but I still like Firefox. The UI change in FF version 29 almost made me try switching, but I was able to find a skin that I liked which eliminated the new UI look and feel (Although the skin has some drawbacks). However, how often FF crashes with the most recent versions (since about 26 or 27) is a considerable negative. At least once I installed the extension Textarea Cache I have not been actually loosing the content of the edits I am working on when a crash occurs. I am sure that once I get the new version of WP:Cite4Wiki to the point where I expect to work on a Chrome version, I will be using Chrome much more. — Makyen (talk) 20:46, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

FYI, I have had big problems when Wikipedia editing with Firefox. I would make a very small change, and other material in the article was getting dropped from the article when I saved my change. I switched over to Google Chrome because of that. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:47, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate knowing. I have not experienced anything like that issue. The only loss of text in Wikipedia article issue that I recall seeing is the one I mentioned above where I am editing a section of a page when Firefox crashes. I will keep a lookout for other similar issues. — Makyen (talk) 18:16, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Sorry. didn't mean to repeat myself. It was the 'split thread' and not my CRS that caused that. {:>{)> 7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:18, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

When originally reading your 17:47, 12 June 2014 (UTC) comment, it was in a different thread. I read what you wrote as quickly establishing establishing context and then providing further explanation. I should have added a comment explaining that splitting this into a separate sub-thread was what might make it appear there was repetition. I, unfortunately, just did not go back and re-read the thread for consistency. Sorry about that. — Makyen (talk) 18:32, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

You are a gentleman and a scholar. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:37, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Manual reverting

I have left a message for you on the Help:Reverting Talk page, in response to yours to me. I hope it helps. --P123ct1 (talk) 09:17, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Tom Rees (British airman)

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:03, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Draft:Tom Rees (pilot)

Please take a look. Thanks. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:54, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for helping on that. I managed to add another footnote and not do it right. This one concerns the Robinson Library citation. Please help!!! Thanks again. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:30, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Happy to do it. The changes I have made so far have been relatively minor. Going through each reference in detail takes considerably more time (often hours). I have been moving in the direction of making that easier, but I am still quite a ways away from that being the case.

The later problem was just a missing <ref>. It is often easier to see issues when you are not the person making the changes, or have been able to step away from the text for a while. — Makyen (talk) 20:36, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for covering my back. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:44, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

No problem. I too appreciate it when you, or others, cover my back. We are all human, and none of us are perfect. One of the nice things about a cooperative project is that most of the errors we make are caught and corrected. — Makyen (talk) 17:53, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

IMHO, this particular article is an outstanding example of the power of the wiki to collaborate and turn out a really good product that does the project proud. Its the way this is all supposed to work. More or less seamlessly, without the B.S. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:58, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

I would say we showed the naysayers how its done. Thank you! 7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:11, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Soliciting comment...

Hi! Would you care to review my FA nomination for the article Of Human Feelings? The article is about a jazz album by Ornette Coleman, and the criteria for FA articles is at WP:FACR. If not, feel free to ignore this message. Cheers! Dan56 (talk) 09:52, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Manistee Watch Company

I managed to bugger this up. Please take a look. It's on the main page as a dyk, I think, so there is some urgency! 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:17, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Template:cite doi RfC

Because you commented at this discussion, I would appreciate your views at this RfC on the particular issue of DOI templates. Thanks! -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:16, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

WP:QC archives

Hello Makyen,

Thanks a billion for your help on configuring Cluebot properly. Do you know of any way we can easily add Archive 1 to the index? Currently a search still scours Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Quebec/Archives/ 1 as evidenced here. - Sweet Nightmares 19:05, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

@SweetNightmares:Sorry for the long delay in responding. Life conspired to keep me away from Wikipedia for about 2 weeks.

I apologize, I had though I had explained that the issue would be cleared up the next time that ClueBot III ran on the page, that it might be a day or two until that happened (depending on the CB3 schedule) and and that it would not be solved until then. I could have and should have gone though and manually edited the index for you. If I recall correctly, at the time I unexpectedly ended up quite rushed at the end of the process of fixing things. Sorry about that. I usually try to be quite thorough. — Makyen (talk) 19:46, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Ref supports2

Hi Makyen. At WT:WikiProject Medicine#Indicating exactly which bits of the text are supported by a citation, user Doc James has raised the very reasonable objection that adding Template:Ref supports2 to an article would add to the workload of his WP:Translation taskforce, who would have to manually remove the wrap-around template from every citation before adding the article to, say, the Swahili Wikipedia.

Would it be feasible to create a script that recognises Ref supports2 on a page and automatically strips it out, leaving the {{cite}} template intact? How big a job would it be? Cheers. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 07:59, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. Don't worry about the objections raised there. You've made a good template; it's up to me, now, to see if I can get through the politics. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 22:05, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

@Anthonyhcole: Thank you. I'm happy to help. I thought I had also responded here, but it looks like I wrote it, and did not save. I got distracted by other things in RL after quickly creating the ref only version of the template and updating my response at WT:WikiProject Medicine with that information.

Unfortunately, it is likely that there will be a considerable amount of politics. I hope that it goes well.

Thank you also for the note here on my user page and mentioning me in that thread. Those each provided an alert via email to which I always try to be responsive. I have been able to get back to Wikipedia for a couple of days, but I have not wanted to go through all of the backlog of changes on my watchlist 8-). — Makyen (talk) 23:19, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

M. A. G. Osmani References

"Misrokothon" by Maj. Gen. Ibrahim has the ISBN Number 984-70105-0434-7. can be verified by e-mailing ananny1dhaka@gmail.com - the publisher. I will post on the ISBN of the other book as soon I can verify.Maglorbd (talk) 12:10, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

@Maglorbd: I appreciate your verifying both ISBNs. Thank you for doing so.

It is possible that the publisher used 984-70105-0434-7 for the ISBN number in the Misrokothon book. If that is what is actually printed in the book, then it certainly is what we should use. While emailing the publisher is reasonable, verification might be more appropriately done by looking in the book to see what is actually printed in it. The ISBN is usually located on the page with publisher/publication information. This is most commonly on the back of the title page.

The reasons I question the ISBN are related to the fact that it is an invalid format:

• As a 13-digit ISBN, it is invalid. 13-digit ISBNs are currently defined only to start with 978 (almost all) or 979 (small number of ISBN ranges defined). For 13 digit ISBNs, any other first 3 digits are invalid.
• 984 is the registration group element for Bangladesh. This would normally be the 1st portion of a 10 digit ISBN.
• 7 (from 70105, assuming that 984 was really the prefix) would indicate that it was published in China and would be hyphenated 978-7-.
• If 984 is really the registration group element then the hyphenation would be 984-701- as the 400 to 799 range for the registrant element (assigned to the publisher) only contains 3 digits for the 984 registration group element.

Interestingly, the check digit is valid for a 13-digit ISBN. This may indicate that someone actually did intend it to be used in this manner. It is also possible that it was intended to be used for a different purpose. There are multiple other identifiers which use similar numbers of digits and identical of check digit calculations. One example of such is International Article Number (EAN)s. It is quite possible that this is the EAN that was assigned to the book and is, perhaps, printed as a barcode on the book. However, that would not be the ISBN. ISBNs are usually printed on the back of the title page along with other publisher/publication information. It is not unreasonable for us to include the EAN to identify the book. The point of the information in a reference is, after all, supposed to permit the reader to find the reference in order to verify the information.

Another time, it would be helpful to have the publisher and date of publication in the reference. It would have permitted me to find a bit more information. For example, the date of publication could indicate if 13 digit ISBNs even existed at the time of publication.

Now having the publisher, Anannya, tends to indicate that the 984-70105-0434-7 ISBN is somehow not from that publisher. The other ISBNs issued by that publisher appear to use the 412 registrant element. Normally, only one registrant element is assigned per publisher and the registrant element is unique to that publisher. It is possible for the publisher to have multiple registrant elements if it runs out of ISBNs in the range within the registrant element originally assigned. The 412 registrant element would have permitted 1,000 ISBNs available for that publisher. A brief search shows nothing even close to that number of books. However, it is quite possible that there are many more books than show up in an English centric search.

Ultimately, in contacting you regarding these ISBNs – as the person who entered them in as references in the M. A. G. Osmani article – I had hoped that you still had access to the books. Ultimately, what is actually printed in the book as the ISBN is the number that we should use. If you do have access to the books, could you look inside the books (usually on the back of the title page, probably not a barcode printed on the book) to determine the ISBN that is actually printed in each book?

Thanks again for checking on these ISBNs. — Makyen (talk) 14:31, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Brian T Thompson

Thanks for your very clear and detailed report at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism on the "Brian T Thompson" vandal. I found that the vandal was using a much wider range of IP addresses in the 74.82.64.x range than you reported, going not just from 74.82.64.64 to 74.82.64.66, but 74.82.64.16 to 74.82.64.69. I have placed a range block covering all those, and also reset the original block on 69.140.44.225 to its original length of 3 months. Please let me know if you see any more from the same vandal. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:38, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

@JamesBWatson: Thank you for doing the research to find out that the person is using a wider range of IP addresses and for putting in the range block. I must admit that I have gotten tired of reverting and warning this one.

You said you wanted to know more addresses. The other addresses I have for this vandal are between a bit less than a month old to 3 months old. Many of them are IPv6 address in the 2600:1003:B0xx range. Given the age for the others that I have, my assumption is that you want to know only addresses that are used in the future or recent past (e.g. in May). If you do want the old ones, tell me and I will provide what I have.

Just FYI: On April 30 and a few days before that, I had AWB scan through about 20k articles related to the ones I knew to have been vandalized and found/fixed a few more of these changes. They are easy to spot and he/she stays in related articles. One of the blocks you placed was due to May 1 & 4 edits on Hhgregg which was on the list of those I checked. Looks like he started up again the day after I finished that pass. I'll run it again when I go to sleep.

If I see more vandalism by this person I will let you know. Thanks again. — Makyen (talk) 11:59, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

@JamesBWatson: He is at it again:

Special:Contributions/2600:1003:B00D:7CB6:0:0:0:103

You do not appear to be on-wiki at the moment, so I am also going to report the user to WP:ANV. Thanks. — Makyen (talk) 05:39, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

• I have blocked the IP address you mentioned. I have also found two more IP addresses used recently, one of them more recently than the one you mentioned, and I have blocked those and reverted edits that had so far escaped. (Those two are 2600:1003:B006:8085:0:0:0:103 and 2600:1003:b001:3c64:0:0:0:103). Unfortunately, range-blocking IP version 6 addresses is difficult, because as far as I know there is no tool to check all the edits from a range, so it is impossible to be sure that there aren't good editors using the range too. All the IPv6 addresses that I have seen this vandal use are of the form 2600:1003:B00x:xxxx:0:0:0:103, but there is no way of selectively blocking all IP addresses of that form. However, I will keep blocking any that I get to know about, so do ping me when you see more. I was intrigued to see this pair of edits: [2] [3], where the vandal did his/her usual vandalism, but then self-reverted. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 07:26, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

That's strange. I guess he did not want to run Lincoln Motors.

Thanks the reverts, blocks and all the work. I'll run AWB through the list of similar pages tonight. Looks like it has been just a bout a week since I last ran it. I don't expect to find anything, as you are very thorough, but it won't hurt.

It would be nice if the tools made handling IPv6 easier. We definitely don't want to block good editors just to cover this person. Sounds like we will just have to keep an eye out; revert and block (you) when he shows up. I will, of course, keep you informed if I find anything , or when I see him next.

BTW: I known you said that there is not an easy way to look through a range of IPv6 addresses for good edits (negative searches are inherently hard to begin with). However, from your finding other IPs, it appears there is a tool to look through an IP range and/or time period to find his edits. Is it an admin only tool, or is there a tool I'm not aware of which I should be using to help find these edits (and to save you time)?

Thanks again. — Makyen (talk) 08:39, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

There are two tools to show all recent edits from a range of IP addresses: http://toolserver.org/~helloannyong/range/ and https://tools.wmflabs.org/xtools/rangecontribs/index.php. It is useful having two, because from time to time one or other of toolserver and tools.wmflabs stops working properly, and the other one can then be useful. Unfortunately neither of them works for IPv6. There used to be a toolserver tool for giving the smallest CIDR range covering a given list of IP addresses. That tool is no longer available, but similar tools are available on the internet: a Google search should get one, if you want one. Other than that, I found other IPs just by typing the vandal's favourite expression into the Wikipedia search box and checking the articles that came up. However, that is not a complete solution, as he/she sometimes varies the exact wording used (e.g. including a middle name). The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:12, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

@JamesBWatson:And he's back again, but appears not that active today, yet.

• Special:Contributions/2600:1003:B002:6E49:0:0:0:103

Thanks for the pointer to the tools. Especially thank you for reminding me that the search function is back to working well. When this first started I tried using it to find these, but found it very ineffective. Thus, the AWB search. I had gotten set in my ways of trying to find these. I'll still use the AWB search from time to time mostly because I have set the regular expression such that it finds a fairly wide variation on his favorite expression. The expression is unique enough such that weeding out false positives takes very little time. — Makyen (talk) 05:17, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

I have stuck my neck out and placed a block on a range covering all the IPv6 addresses I have seen the vandal using. I don't like doing that without without being certain that no constructive editors are using the range, so I have limited the block to 48 hours for now. (Actually, from the little I know about how ISPs use IPv6 addresses, I am inclined to think that there probably aren't lots of other users in the range, so it would probably be OK to use a longer range block, but I would prefer to be more certain.) The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 06:55, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. I don't want you to get in trouble over this. I also don't want to block constructive editors. On the other hand, my impression about the use of IPv6 addresses is similar to yours both in its lack of detail/depth and belief that there are unlikely to be many others in the range you blocked.

Floating an idea: It appeared that the use of an edit filter might be reasonable, at least to report, the addition of his favorite expression. It appears an edit filter could be quite specific to even the placement of the expression within |key_people= by an IP user. I am unsure if the extra compute delay on every edit is justified for the relatively small problem which this one vandal represents. I am also of two minds as to using an edit filter to block, as opposed to report, this particular edit. Currently the vandalism is very specific text which is easily identifiable. I am unsure if using an edit filter to block such edits from IP users would force him to stop vandalizing, or just cause him to adopt some new way of vandalizing Wikipedia which might not be so easy to detect. — Makyen (talk) 07:38, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

I hadn't thought of an edit filter, but I agree with everything you say about it. Obviously, any edit filter must impose some overhead on the servers, but this one could have a fairly minimal impact on irrelevant edits, as it could start with very specific criteria, which would immediately fail for almost all edits. Of course, there is the risk that the vandal will simply switch to a different form of vandalism that is harder to detect, so perhaps best would be to use an edit filter just to report, as you suggest. That way, the vandal would not be alerted to the filter's existence, and would have no reason to think of changing his/her modus operandi. I agree that it is open to doubt whether the damage by this one vandal is enough to justify even the small overhead, but it is just possible that the increased rate of blocking and reverting might be enough to cause the vandal to give up quite soon, so that the edit filter could be retired very soon, and maybe the small overhead for just a short time would be justified. And of course, if he/she didn't give up soon, we would be free to decide that the edit filter was not succeeding in its aim and retire it anyway. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 08:34, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree on with all the points you made. It seams like it might be reasonable to try it (reporting) for a time to see how it goes, or at least experimenting to see what the overhead cost actually is. As you mentioned, it should be possible to design the filter to immediately fail on the vast majority of edits, thus be of less impact. It seems like something that should at least be explored, if for no other reason than to have better information if something similar ever comes up again.

I question how intelligent/aware of Wikipedia normal practice we should consider this person might be. If I was – for some reason – the one doing the vandalizing, given the number of times my account has placed warnings on IP addresses he/she has been using, I would have certainly gone to this page looking for any discussion about my edits. Given our potential change in tactic and that it could become ineffective with a change in vandalism content, would it be a good idea to remove the portion of this conversation which discusses using the edit filter in order to possibly prevent this person from reading about it? If you feel so, feel free to edit this thread down to prior to my floating the idea. I would not eliminate the thread in its entirety, as the vandal may have already read a portion. Given that just leaving edits in the edit history is an acceptable, but not recommended, thread archiving method I believe doing this would be within policy. — Makyen (talk) 09:44, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

@JamesBWatson: He's back again.

• Special:Contributions/2600:1003:B02C:FC86:0:0:0:103

Given the level of persistence of this vandal and the complete lack of attention to the warnings previously given, I am thinking that it might be time to Wikipedia:Revert, block, ignore. Thus, I am just going to revert and not put any user warnings on his/her pages. — Makyen (talk) 02:12, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I think you are right. I have gone right ahead and placed a range block for three days on a range including the new IP address. The fact that the vandal has had to move to a new IP range indicates that the previous range block has started to put him/her to some inconvenience, so if further range blocks add further inconvenience then there is a chance it will start to discourage him/her. I have no illusion that the vandal will go away very soon, but past experience of similar vandals shows that there is a chance that once they get the message that from now on every IP range they use will be rapidly blocked, they may eventually give up. Perhaps we can keep the edit filter idea in reserve, to try if the vandal doesn't start slowing down soon. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 10:17, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

@JamesBWatson: He's back again.

• Special:Contributions/2600:1003:B013:FC27:0:0:0:103

— Makyen (talk) 19:29, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

A few days ago I had a conversation with an experienced editor who knows more about networking issues than I do, and he reckons that it is perfectly safe to block fairly large IPv6 ranges for a long time. I have gone ahead and blocked the range for 2 months. Let's see how it goes from there. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:04, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. That sounds good to me. — Makyen (talk) 20:48, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

@JamesBWatson: He's back again.

• Special:Contributions/2600:1003:b01a:d74b::103
  

— Makyen (talk) 03:36, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

@JamesBWatson: He's back again.

• Special:Contributions/70.192.207.186
  

This appears to be the period of the day that you are not active on Wikipedia. If he continues to edit, I will also report it on WP:AVI. However, he only made 3 edits to two articles, and appears to have stopped, or suspended action, an hour and a half before I logged on. Thus, I don't currently consider it urgent to act on this.

There is one strange thing though. Across the top of the contributions page is a banner that says "67.121.238.254 is a student in Intellectual Freedom - LIS 493". I would not consider this to be strange, except that it is for a different IP address. Hmmm... now the banner is gone. I'm chalking it up as a glitch of some sort. — Makyen (talk) 20:28, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Usually I'm not active at this time, but as it happens today I logged on and saw this. I have blocked the IP address, but it's a dynamic IP address, and I don't know how much effect the block will have. Just three edits in a short time and then stopping may well mean that it was a computer the vandal just had brief access to, and he or she wasn't going to come back to it again anyway. Who knows? If so, the fact that he/she is having to resort to such short-term measures does suggests that the existing blocks are having an effect in obstructing him/her.

The banner about 67.121.238.254 does seem odd, especially as that IP address has never edited Wikipedia. As you say, probably a glitch of some sort. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:57, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

@JamesBWatson: He's back again.

• Special:Contributions/74.82.68.18 (yesterday)
  
• Special:Contributions/74.82.68.19
  
• Special:Contributions/74.82.68.20
  
• Special:Contributions/74.82.68.33
  
• Special:Contributions/74.82.68.36
  
• Special:Contributions/74.82.68.66
  
• Special:Contributions/74.82.68.67
  
• Special:Contributions/74.82.68.68
  

This, again, looks like your normal time off-wiki. The edits took place a few/several hours ago (and one yesterday) but do not appear to be ongoing at the moment. Thus, I don't consider this urgent. These look like they are back to being with the same ISP as the original IP addresses (ISP has the range 74.82.64/95, in May the edits were on 74.82.64.16/69).

BTW: the banner I mentioned last time was an intermittent issue that was seen by others, reported on WP:VPT and resolved. — Makyen (talk) 22:31, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

What kind of mind must someone have to put so much work into endlessly repeating such a silly, childish bit of nonsense? I have blocked an IP range covering all the IPs you listed for a month. I am happy doing that, as there have been no other edits from the range since May, and going back further than that most of the edits are unconstructive in one way or another, so risk of collateral damage is minimal. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:55, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

@JamesBWatson:, What kind of mind? Not sure, but I think you calling it childish is likely on the money, or at least adolescent (due to understanding the need and having the ability to change IPs); certainly persistent. Yet another from a short time ago:

• Special:Contributions/166.137.89.177

Yep, definitely persistent. — Makyen (talk) 14:51, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Sigh... [4] The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 16:15, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

@JamesBWatson: Within a day of the 3 month block expiring on 69.140.44.225, the person made the typical vandalism edit on 18, or so, pages.

I've been taking a bit of a wiki-break for a while so I have not been keeping up with any other IPs which might have been making this change. I did not find any obvious matches when trying a search today. In addition, I did run my AWB set for this person a few days ago (a week?) and found no matches. Thus, if such changes have been made they were either on new, unassociated pages, or were corrected by that time. — Makyen (talk) 21:34, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

As you may know, by the time I got here, another administrator had already blocked the IP address for three months. However, in view of the fact that past experience shows that the vandal is not deterred by three month blocks, I have increased that to six months. Since it is clear that the IP address is used only by the vandal, I think there is a case for blocking for far longer than that, but I decided to settle for six months. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 10:15, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Midi Mist

I note that in the last four months or so you entered an anchor on the table element "Midi Mist", an atomic test on the page Operation Latchkey. This is not a problem, though I would like to inquire as to what depends upon the anchor. The page (and all atomic test list pages) are generated by a database program, which has no way to generate the anchor code automatically at this point. The question is whether I need to program it in, or was it only temporarily in use? Thanks for your help. SkoreKeep (talk) 23:05, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

@SkoreKeep:The anchor was, and is, used as a target for a link from Lookout Mountain Air Force Station#Productions.

I am surprised that these are updated in a semi-automatic process from a database. I can certainly understand initially creating such pages from a database, but having them updated from a database has the inherent issue of making it such that any changes made by other editors are either discarded or have to be back-ported to the method of generation. While I don't want to make an issue of it, having such pages updated from a database appears to have some significant Wikipedia policy based issues. This is particularly true when it is not stated in the page, not even in a Wiki-comment, that the page is generated in that manner. Without having it disclosed, and both the database and process for generation available for others to edit, it effectively makes the pages WP:OWNED by the person who has charge of the database and process.

I appreciate your asking me about the anchor rather than just overwriting the contents of the page. One solution would be to have an anchor for each test rather than just a special case for Midi Mist. If there is an anchor for each test then individual tests could be linked when referred to elsewhere instead of having to link to just the page. The longer the list, the more benefit there is to being able to link to individual tests. — Makyen (talk) 00:28, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. To answer your posting...

No, I was not aware that the generation of the data from a database was against any policy, but I take your point, now that it's made. I have made it a practice to assure that all changes made to the pages since the last regeneration are expressed and incorporated, it is that process that I'm doing now, and which detected your anchor. While I haven't made a specific note on the pages themselves about it since I started this effort last October, I can see as how it might be a very good idea, and I'll see to it.

I certainly don't believe that I own the pages. I've had several knowledgeable people give me suggestions, and I've in all cases, I believe, informed them about the source of the data. I am by all means receptive to criticism, corrections, and crave information that I don't have. However, in the collection there are about 220 pages, and hand-editing them would seem to be a pretty error-prone trade-off. Finally, I've gone through several generations of formatting the data for uniform content and appearance.

So, I like your idea about anchoring all the tests; that makes the change required easily done, and useful. I'll also place some kind of notice about the automatic generation of the pages - an article in each talk page would be the best way, I think. In the long run, I'm also attempting to find others who might be interested in the database itself, and I hoped that perhaps this would be one vehicle for that. Rest assured your link won't be dropped. If you have any further suggestions or comments, please feel no hesitation to contact me. Thanks again for your message.

Oh, one thing you can tell me, I think - to whom should I address an inquiry in a policy-determining position about this? I'm not uncomfortable doing so, and if they determine that I'm out of bounds, or care to make suggestions themselves, I'd be all ears. SkoreKeep (talk) 04:14, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Makyen, I'm performing the due diligence you mentioned above and I had neglected. Please see Talk:List of nuclear weapons. I'd appreciate any comments you have either there publicly, here, or on Talk:SkoreKeep. Thanks. SkoreKeep (talk) 01:21, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

ISBN

Hi, I've commented on the ISBN:Talk page on your removal of my edit to the ISBN article page. Would appreciate if you could read & respond. Many thanks Mmitchell10 (talk) 21:45, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Done. Comment left at Talk:International Standard Book Number. Sorry for the delay. — Makyen (talk) 18:12, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Radish

I am having trouble with the two sfns in the footnotes, which don't link to the book that is cited when you click on them. I don't know what I did wrong. Please take a look under the bonnet. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:52, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Duh. Thanks. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:16, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Most of the following you have already realized, but some may be explicit information which might help, or not... and since I had already written it...

The issue was that the link generated by the {{sfn}} did not match the link generated from using |ref=harv in the reference to which you desired to link. The {{sfn}} generated a link to #CITEREFDixon2007 whereas the {{Cite book}} was defining an available link to #CITEREFDixon.2C_Geoffrey_R.2007. This is because the {{sfn}} had been told that the author was Dixon when the {{Cite book}} had |author=Dixon, Geoffrey R.. If you want to just use the last name as the reference in {{sfn}}, you need to use the |last= and |first= parameters to the citation templates. In this instance: |last=Dixon and |first=Geoffrey R..

If you are going to be using {{sfn}} and short references, you might want to add the following to your common.js

//Place error notes for incomplete/malformed harvard citations.
//User:Ucucha/HarvErrors
importScript('User:Ucucha/HarvErrors.js'); //Backlink: [[User:Ucucha/HarvErrors.js]]
                                           //  [[User:Ucucha/HarvErrors]]
//The check for citations that have no links pointing to them is prone to false positives, 
//because citations do not always need to have such links. Disable such checks.
window.checkLinksToCitations = false;

This will result in such errors showing up with some explanation text in large bold red text at the point where they occur. These are a bit more helpful vs. having to go only by checking the links.— Makyen (talk) 18:34, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Copied all of this. Thanks. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:40, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Kollasmosoma sentum

Another problem. Sigh. Sorry to bother you. Can't figure out what I've done wrong. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:35, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Figured it out. Never mind. Sorry to bother you. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:01, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Source Material

Hi Makyen, I assume that you are the author of the piece about Lookout Mountain Air Force Station. I'm restoring the place and am looking for any reference materials, photos and especially any construction photos. Could you give me a call and tell me where I might look or if I can make copies of your materials. Ken Hackman has given me a great set of photos and some good info. I'd love it if you could help. Regards, Jim 323 203 5882 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Motherco (talk • contribs) 03:55, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Thanks, I'm restoring the bottom level right now and have just left you a message on your comments page. Thanks. Jim Motherco (talk) 03:57, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Happy Holidays!

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2015!!!

Hello Makyen, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you a heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2015. Happy editing, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:01, 25 December 2014 (UTC) Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of {{U|Technical 13}} to all registered users whom have commented on his talk page. To prevent receiving future messages, please follow the opt-out instructions on User:Technical 13/Holiday list

TWL HighBeam check-in

Hello Wikipedia Library Users,

You are receiving this message because the Wikipedia Library has record of you receiving a one-year subscription to HighBeam. This is a brief update to remind you about that access:

• Make sure that you can still log in to your HighBeam account; if you are having trouble feel free to contact me for more information. When your access expires you can reapply at WP:HighBeam.
• Remember, if you find this source useful for your Wikipedia work, make sure to include citations with links on Wikipedia: links to partner resources are one of the few ways we can demonstrate usage and demand for accounts to our partners. The greater the linkage, the greater the likelihood a useful partnership will be renewed. For more information about citing this source, see Wikipedia:HighBeam/Citations
• Write unusual articles using this partner's sources? Did access to this source create new opportunities for you in the Wikipedia community? If you have a unique story to share about your contributions, let us know and we can set up an opportunity for you to write a blog post about your work with one of our partner's resources.

Finally, we would greatly appreciate if you filled out this short survey. The survey helps us not only better serve you with facilitating this particular partnership, but also helps us discover what other partnerships and services the Wikipedia Library can offer.

Thank you. Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) at 16:45, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Developing features

There was some discussion recently on Jimbo's Talk page of using the WMF grant process to fund the development and maintenance of on-wiki features. For example, on several occasions editors have asked if WMF will support the citation tools. The New York Times reference generator has been broken for ages. The Wikiblame tool seems to either not work, or not work very well (or I'm just missing something). I'm shocked there isn't a way to search a user's contribs for keywords, which would help in SPIs and other things.

The most recent discussion was about creating more advanced COI/sock detection. For example, if we had natural language processing software that rated the likelihood that two accounts were the same person, based on their language patterns.

I'd be happy to formalize a grant submission but would need a technical person to do the work developing the features (and take all the money), and Anthonyhcole mentioned you had done something in the past for $1,000 that came out well. Something you might be interested in? CorporateM (Talk) 02:17, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

CorporateM, Yes, I am interested in developing additional features, or working on upkeep of current ones. It appears that there are multiple possible projects in both development and maintenance. What project(s) to focus on is something that would need to be determined. The scope of those you have mentioned ranges in time requirements from relatively small to quite significant. I'm working my way through reading the complete discussion on Jimbo's Talk page, but I will probably not complete doing so prior to going to sleep (I've been up for about 24 hours).

As to WMF grants: My expectation is that this sort of thing probably fits well in Individual Engagement Grants (IEG). Unfortunately, the deadline for the current round of those was the end of last month. Project and Event Grants (PEG) might also be appropriate. I have a bit of experience with the beginning of the IEG process as I attempted to get a couple of projects approved last September. However, some family stuff came up (I'm willing to provide more information, but not on-wiki) during that period which resulted in my not being able to put the effort into the proposals which would have been needed to have them be successfully approved. — Makyen (talk) 18:42, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Yup, I was going to go the IEG route waiting for the next roundup. There have been several related discussions in different areas - a lot of times folks are asking WMF to maintain stuff like the citation tools, but there hasn't been any indication that they will provide developer resources for this kind of thing directly. CorporateM (Talk) 20:03, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

I've gotten a draft started with my own little wish-list of sorts. I'll ping @Anthonyhcole:, in case they have time to take a look as well. CorporateM (Talk) 21:23, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Personally, I'd just pick one defined task (not ongoing maintenance), ask for quotes (i.e. "put it out to tender") on WP:VPT and choose the best quote from a person or group who looks like they have understood the brief and can do it, and only then submit it for a grant. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 00:50, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

@Anthonyhcole:What do you think would be the best thing to focus on first? I would prefer to go with someone that has provided you with timely, quality products in the past, than go with the lowest bidder, who may or may not be reliable. Can either of you confirm whether this Firefox add-on works? I've installed it on my mac, but the options the documentation states appear when you right-click are not actually there. CorporateM (Talk) 16:00, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Ok, it works on my pc, but not on mac. CorporateM (Talk) 16:51, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

CorporateM and Anthonyhcole, If you are interested in a Wikipedia citation Firefox add-on, I significantly updated Wikipedia:Cite4Wiki and called it Cite4Wiki Phoenix. It creates a citation for a currently viewed webpage. Unfortunately, it is not currently on Mozilla add-ons (I need to do a bit more work before putting it back up there). However, you can download it from: Cite4Wiki Phoenix. I am interested in feedback as to basically anything (e.g. problems/issues, desires for additional functionality, user interface, etc.). I do not currently have a Mac environment, so have not yet tested it there.

As to an IEG grant, keep in mind that we have nearly 6 months until the next deadline for submitting proposals. That gives a lot of time to figure out exactly what is desired. Given that there are multiple things that are desired, I would suggest that multiple proposals be submitted with things separated out, at least, into related groups. Having multiple proposals potentially permits getting one or more proposals with smaller dollar amounts approved rather than one big one (which is less likely to be approved). — Makyen (talk) 17:56, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm taking a look at that now and also playing with visual editor, which appears to already fix the problem with having to code-in citation templates. I'm also starting to cleanup the citation tools list of broken tools, etc. I'll spend a few months using various features and see where I end up. CorporateM (Talk) 19:13, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Makyen, I've downloaded Phoenix but when I double-click it Windows (I think) asks "How do you want to open this type of file (.xpi)?" What should I use? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 00:38, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Anthonyhcole, The easiest way to install it is to drag and drop the file you downloaded onto an open Firefox window of the profile in which you want it installed. Mozilla (Firefox) does not set up an actual mapping to the .xpi file extension. I assume this is because Mozilla uses it for the add-ons for multiple different applications (e.g. Firefox, Thunderbird, SeaMonkey). — Makyen (talk) 05:59, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Update

I've been using the Visual Editor and I think it makes the issue of having to manually fill citation templates virtually obsolete. The only thing I'm wondering is if it would be possible to have a Gadget that a user has the option of activating that would attempt to auto-fill the citation parameters in the visual editor interface once a URL is added. Is that possible? CorporateM (Talk) 21:32, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Hey, one other question, is it feasible to create a feature that would allow a user to opt-in to pending changes (for example, as an alternative to Request Edit)? I would probably be willing to pay for such a feature out of my own pocket, but I figured it's not possible without access to the core software (only WMF could do it). CorporateM (Talk) 17:37, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

CorporateM, I'm going to have to play around with the Visual Editor to see exactly what it is that you want the new code to affect. It is very likely that what you desire is possible.

I am not sure if we can really say that the Visual Editor (VE) makes the effort people put into filling out citation templates obsolete. When the VE comes out of beta and is the default interface, then that may be the case. While there is an increasing rate of adopting VE (currently 61,566 users) it is not the default method of editing pages.

For an IEG grant we should not explicitly state that it is a gadget that is the goal. We can say that a user script will be developed to the level of quality appropriate for it to become a gadget if it is decided by the community that it should be made one. We can also say that the proposal includes any modifications needed to make it qualify as a gadget, and that it will be proposed as a gadget. The reason for this is that gadgets are effectively user scripts that have been promoted through a process of proposal and approval by the community. Actually stating that the goal is a gadget puts a process (community approval) that is not controlled by the people involved with the grant as a gating item for the grant. In addition, most developed scripts take considerably longer than the 6 month IEG period to gain the level of community approval and adoption to qualify as a gadget.

As to pending changes, I am not sure what you are asking. To set up pending changes on a specific page is something that can be requested at Requests for page protection. For a user to be granted the right to review pending changes, they need the "reviewer" permission which can be obtained by requesting the permission at: Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Pending changes reviewer. If you are asking if a specific user can have all of their edits on all pages be pending changes, or if a user can have all of their edits on selected pages be pending changes, then the answer is that there is no support for such in the MediaWiki software. While it might be possible to develop a MediaWiki extension which enables such a feature, doing so is not something that can be the subject of an IEG grant. IEG grants specifically exclude: "MediaWiki Extensions or software features requiring code review and integration cannot be funded." — Makyen (talk) 00:18, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Turns out one of the things I was mentioning already exists at Wikipedia:TWL/Citoid. I mean for an individual editor to opt-in to pending changes, say by checking a box, but it sounds like that can't be done. I'm going to see if I can figure out how to get Citoid working for me. Hopefully one day I'll find a way to get Visual Editor and Citoid on my own personal Wiki, but it looks to be beyond my abilities. CorporateM (Talk) 04:09, 25 April 2015 (UTC)