User talk:Smasongarrison/Archives/2018

Broken link in edit summary

Hello, the link in thids edit that says "url trimming of identifying info" is broken; the anchor should be "csdoc url", not "csdocl". Graham87 02:21, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Oops, thanks! Smasongarrison (talk) 02:28, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Citations from film site

Hi Smasongarrison,

I do a lot editing on actors and directors pages. I picked you out of the blue because your user page was quite advanced and you did a recent edit on on the star article of actor Gary Cooper.

In my early edits I used a lot of IMDB, blog spot, and unreliable citations got reprimanded. Anyways do you know if there is a database of reliable sources, even just for cast a crew?

If you do not specialized in that area where can I find a user that is?

ThanksFilmman3000 (talk) 00:17, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Honestly, I have zero clue. I'd suggest asking the users who pointed out that those cites weren't ideal. My bet is you want to use a source that can't be updated by everyone. Good luck! Smasongarrison (talk) 00:21, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Please use "dead-url" instead of "dead link" in cite templates, and only when archive-url is present

See this edit and ones like it. The correct parameter is |dead-url=, not |dead link=, and |dead-url= should be used only if |archive-url= is present, per the template documentation. Your edits effectively remove the visual indication that a link is dead, making it harder for editors to find and fix the problem. – Jonesey95 (talk) 12:04, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Oops. Thanks for the heads up. I'll make sure to do that. Smasongarrison (talk) 14:51, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 12

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited From Beginning to End, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Amazon (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:08, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

2006 Canadian Census edit

I have to ask: what was up with this? --R'n'B (call me Russ) 11:10, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

The disambiguation label was an oversight on my end. Smasongarrison (talk)

Removing direct Google Books links

Why do you have AWB set to remove direct links to pages in Google Books? That seems rather counterproductive. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 03:26, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

~~ I'm removing the identifying information that's embedded in the url. Info about the specific search and user computer.

No, that's not what's happening. See for example this edit where you removed the page link from a url that had no other identifying information. You need to correct your script to leave the &lpg= and &pg= parameters in the url. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 03:35, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Oops, my mistake. I'll fix that right away. Smasongarrison (talk)

IABot edit

This edit is incorrect on two counts. 1. the archive link doesn't work. 2. There shouldn't be a |access-date= as the source URL is dead and there is no way you could verify it working as of today's date. It's understood this is a tool to assist, but you are responsible for all edits made with the tool. -- GreenC 03:44, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Source for Davy Crocket's confirmed death

@Smasongarrison: Here is the source for the known death of Davy Crocket: (talk) 22:41, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Please read it for yourself, and let me know if you think if it is valid or not. Davidgoodheart (talk) 17:26, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

References

As of template dates

You inputted the date incorrectly in the {{as of}} template on the Murder Ballads article. Please check your work and refer to the documentation on how to fix your AWB script. --Nessie (talk) 14:46, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

How so? The year was 2001 and that's what my script extracted and input. Smasongarrison (talk) Are you referring to the capitalization? Because lower case values throw an error.

The year, month and day parameters have no name. See Template:As of#Examples. -- John of Reading (talk) 15:55, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Oh, thanks. I missed that key piece. Will update now. Smasongarrison (talk)

I think I fixed all the errors across my edits. Smasongarrison (talk)

Hi! You placed an As of template in 2010–2017 Toronto serial homicides for a table of victims' data. I believe the purpose of the template is to populate categories/lists for information which is anticipated to become out of date, so that it can be flagged at some future point for updating. In this case, these are deceased persons and the data should be stable so I'm not sure it requires updating. Or do I have that wrong? – Reidgreg (talk) 13:15, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

The person's may be deceased, but often the as of are about the ongoing status of appeals. It's definitely a boundary condition that I haven't fully troubleshot yet. I think of it as a flag for potentially dated statements rather than as something that needed to be re-evaluated for later updating. But, I think you're right on that the original intent. Smasongarrison (talk) 22:25, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Clipping the Google Book URL to remove the search query

Hi, thanks for your contributions, can you please tweak the parameters in AWB to not clip the URLs while doing clean up on articles. The search query helps to land on the exact page to verify the cited text. and helps in wP:V this is expecially more important on controversial articles such as [1] war pages and Kashmir --DBigXrayᗙ 22:31, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

The clipping of google book urls is deliberate. 999 out of 1000 times, the search query isn't needed and the page/snippet is sufficient.

When you clipp the search query you will not land at the page snippet or the page. you will land at the book cover. this is not helpful and is becoming disruptive. Please refer to my contribution and see for yourself. regards. --DBigXrayᗙ 22:37, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

I have seen. If there's a page number, it goes to that, and not the cover.

Regardless, I've paused the query clipper. I'll see if I can tweak it so that it only removes the query if there's a specific page.

(edit conflict) Most of the links I had reverted did not have the page numbers and were landing at cover after your edits. I would kindly suggest you to turn off this URL clipping feature if you cannot control it. Please handle AWB with care, repeated disruptions can be reported to wP:ANI and may lead to loss of user rights to run AWB and other penalties. please sign your posts with ~~~~ at the end, and check WP:INDENT. regards. --DBigXrayᗙ 22:47, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

I can control it. Until you raised the issue, I had not considered that the query without page number was a unique condition. Smasongarrison (talk) 22:53, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

OK thanks for turning off the query clipper. --DBigXrayᗙ 22:47, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Even if the Page number is there, it helps the reviewer to land on a page with a highlighted text. For example, consider this edit on Khalistan the highlighted text is removed. see these 2 links to compare[2] [3]. I see no justifiable reason to remove the helpful search query. --DBigXrayᗙ 22:55, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

The search query is nearly always not deliberate, makes the url hard to read, makes archiving a pain, and many of the other parts of the query contain identifying information that the url copier doesn't intend. So there are many good reasons to clip it. Smasongarrison (talk) 22:59, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Continuing from elsewhere: From both URLs, I arrive at the same page and see no difference. I archived both URLs from archive.is and got the same result. Compare the screenshot of URL without query parameters and with query parameters. Both of them arrive at page 331, although the scanned image is not displayed possibly because archive.is is a bot. —Gazoth (talk) 23:05, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Gazoth, please refer to the google book links I posted to see the difference even if Page number is added. As for archive, I believe Archive.org cannot properly archive Google book pages. anyway its not enough justification to deny users of googlebook links the ability to quickly see the cited text. --DBigXrayᗙ 23:14, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

@DBigXray: Did you not see the URLs in the archive.is pages? Once again, I opened both URLs that you posted and arrived at page 331. To demonstate that, I archived both URLs using archive.is and posted the links above. Both pages land at page 331. —Gazoth (talk) 23:19, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Actually, when you use the query parameters, sometimes the you'll receive a warning that you've reached the limit for viewing the book. Smasongarrison (talk) 23:08, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

regarding the limit warning, its still ok, as the user can then navigate and reach, but I don't see this as enough reason to force the reader to land at the book cover page. --DBigXrayᗙ 23:11, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I've noticed the warning appearing in both cases. I don't think the warning is triggered by anything other than rate of request from a particular IP address. —Gazoth (talk) 23:12, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Lets compare the pros and cons. URL is a text for browser and not humans to read. Not sure how it affects archiving. I can see clear benefits in clipping the URLs of other websites and I support you doing that. but I am only opposing clipping the Google Book URLs and for reasons stated above. comparing the pros and cons, I would suggest you not to clip in general if you cannot exclude the Google book URLs from the query clipper. --DBigXrayᗙ 23:11, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Urls still need to be looked at if you're using raw source code. The url clipper is deliberately for google books. I appreciate you raising the boundary issue when there's no linked page. I've set it so that it only removes the queries if there is a page (&lpg or &pg), which is practically what you wanted. When there is a page, the link reverts to that page not the cover. Smasongarrison (talk) 23:18, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

If you are deliberately running it for Google Books, I would strongly recommend you stop running this script altogether. No even if the page number is mentioned it still helps to retain the search query as it highlights the search term and makes it easier to read. Also the piece of information are spread over multiple pages, the accurate search term also helps in that. we don't want future readers to be guessing what search term the original author used to find the sourced content. This makes absolutely no sense to me. As Rzvas rightly points below, using AWB for controversial edits may lead to revoking of rights and/or other sanctions. --DBigXrayᗙ 07:49, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

• I reverted your edit on 1971 war page just now.[4] AWB is not for controversial edits but only those edits that have clear consensus from community or policy. You should self-revert wherever you have trimmed Google Books URLs because I see you have done that across many articles. Rzvas (talk) 05:51, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Agree on the request to mass self revert the edits that clipped Google Book URLs. --DBigXrayᗙ 07:49, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

• Agree that the clipping of search queries should not be automatic. We simply don't know what the original editor intended if the search queries are lost. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:02, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

• Those are fair points, especially in regard to controversy and awb. I've set up the trimmer now to only remove information that clearly isn't intended/relevant (browser client, user language).Smasongarrison (talk) 20:57, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Smasongarrison since you and three other editors agree that the Google Book Query URL must not be clipped, can you go ahead and revert your own controversial AWB edits that violate this "WP:CONSENSUS among us" ? there are quite a few pages that you edited and clipped several links. --DBigXrayᗙ 22:26, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

User:DBigXray I can try, but I don't know a way to mass revert with awb. Do you have any suggestions? Smasongarrison (talk) 23:26, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

WP:ROLLBACK right at WP:PERM or reverts byWP:TWINKLE are your 2 options. Rollback is much faster and you are qualified for it. Regards. --DBigXrayᗙ 23:32, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion. I've made the request Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Rollback#User:Smasongarrison. And I've scrapped the list of pages. Smasongarrison (talk) 00:01, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

 Closed Done reverting edits from google books url. 01:53, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Most times, such as in this case, the extra URL content is not necessary. They are often (though obviously not always) added by editors who have not yet figured out that they don't need to include the search string -- that it can be cut. I used to be one of those editors. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:05, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

I agree. But, can AWB figure out where it is needed and where it is not? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:26, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

It isn't a question of AWB, it's a question of whether AWB plus the user can. I agree with you both, but obviously, in the rare 1/1000 cases, I chose wrong, upsetting a subset of users. Smasongarrison (talk) 22:19, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

I've figured out the distinction between &dq and &q. &dq describes the original query, whereas &q provides the actual highlighting (example: [5]. I think that removing @dq, but keeping &q is a good way to only trim values that are unintended. Smasongarrison (talk) 22:59, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for doing the tweaks, Smason. I am generally happy with AWB clean-ups. Thanks for all the cleaning up you and others are doing. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:13, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Well, it's frankly totally unnecessary, as is the removal of single spaces at the ends of paragraphs (many editors have typing fingers that automatically add a space after every period, and why not, it facilitates adding the next sentence in the correct place, should there ever be one, as there often is. Among many other needless bits of AWB-ery. Trimming the query immediately restricts what other editors will see; though if a query is oft-repeated, Google eventually restricts the result to the title page anyway. What this discussion does show is that AWB editing automatically disturbs all other involved editors, so even though they try bravely to ignore its mosquito whine on all of their watchlists, it keeps on bothering everyone regardless. Chiswick Chap (talk) 05:15, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Pinging Trappist the monk, who often deals with citation matters and often has good insight into them. Maybe he is interested in weighing in on this. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:02, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Honestly, I think the conversation is wrapped up. I've already rolledback over 1000 edits. If you guys would like to chat about this elsewhere great, but I'd like to archive this conversation so I don't get constantly notified about it. Smasongarrison (talk) 23:12, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Here because I was pinged. cs1|2 documentation recommends the removal of tracking parameters; they benefit the website not necessarily the reader and may impact on reader privacy. I think that such cruft should be removed with prejudice. I am indifferent as regards keeping or deleting to the GoogleBooks &q= query string; for me, as long as the link gets me to a page that I can read, I don't really need the highlighting (though, when the query is poorly chosen, that highlighting can be damned annoying).

—Trappist the monk (talk) 00:19, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. Smasongarrison (talk) 00:24, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 19

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Chlothar I, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Childeric (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:33, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

President vs. president

Some of your capitalization changes are inappropriate. WP:JOBTITLES specifies that words such as "president" are only supposed to be capitalized when they are part of a formal title (effectively part of the person's name), not when they are used to simply refer to the job. When used in a phrase such as "the current president" or in reference to the president of a corporation, "president" is just a common noun and shouldn't be capitalized. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 17:57, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

And "vice President"[6][7] is never correct. Maybe you should slow down with the drive-by editing, eh?

Thanks for catching that error. Smasongarrison (talk)

Broke a comment

Hey, just FYI, you broke a comment with this edit hiding the rest of the article and categories etc. --Palosirkka (talk) 12:19, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for catching that. I'll tweak my code to check if I goof on comments. Smasongarrison (talk)

Alterations to Google Books links

Hi, you recently made this edit to some of the Google Books links at Lee Grant which resulted in breaking the links. Here is the resulting effect of the changes you made:

1. Before your edit; and after your edit.
2. Before; and after.
3. Before; and after.

In the first two cases removing the search term completely wiped out the snippet that was being used to source the article, thereby defeating the purpose of having a link in the first place. In the third case your edit removed the link to the relevant page, although the page was still accessible with an extra click. Also, you refer to WP:LINKSTOAVOID as your rationale for undertaking the edit. Links that are being used as references are exempt from this guideline. Please note the caveat "these external-link guidelines do not apply to citations to reliable sources within the body of the article" in bold at the top of the page. I have no problem with editors cleaning up URLs but you need to take care that you don't inadvertently remove the source itself, or indeed make the link less specific when the specificity actually aids claim corroboration. Betty Logan (talk) 06:14, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know that some of the book urls get broken. My understanding was the dq query is tracking the originating referral query, whereas q is the actual search term. And thus the dq tag is the kind of thing referral (links to avoid) and excessive info that shouldn't be included. Thanks for pulling these specific links. I going to crawl through them and figure out why they didn't work the way I had expected them to. I can't do it immediately, I'm traveling, but once I get back home, I'll see what is happening. (I do cite multiple rational in my edits about this, the big one for these google book edits is actually in the citation style documentation, here Template:Citation_Style_documentation#url which I also link to. Smasongarrison (talk) 21:33, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

So I'm crawling thru the three urls you found that were broken. And, I found some of my own. eg, https://books.google.com/books?id=Fgya85u7S-4C&pg=PA4&dq=anarcho-capitalism+right+libertarian&hl=en&ei=YRWYTNmFNcL98Abz7N3sDw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=10&ved=0CFQQ6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q=anarcho-capitalism%20right%20libertarian&f=false, versus the "fixed" https://books.google.com/books?id=Fgya85u7S-4C&pg=PA4&resnum=10#v=onepage&q=anarcho-capitalism%20right%20libertarian. Clearly not fixed... so obviously, I want to be really conservative with url trimming, so what I'm going to do is only trim a few obvious things dq, source, and then slowly reincorporate the trimmings that might be breaking this and hand check them. I think that there's some weird interaction between #v=blahblah and resnum/num=number. If you can spot any logic underlying what's breaking these specific links, let me know because I'm not seeing it. Smasongarrison (talk) 15:32, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

The general rule seems to be that &dq=anarcho-capitalism+right+libertarian highlights the words on the specified page (e.g. https://books.google.com/books?id=Fgya85u7S-4C&pg=PA4&dq=anarcho-capitalism+right+libertarian) while &q=anarcho-capitalism%20right%20libertarian returns a general search on the term (e.g. https://books.google.com/books?id=Fgya85u7S-4C&pg=PA4&q=anarcho-capitalism+right+libertarian. Personally I would retain the "dq=" part if there is a page number. For example, https://books.google.com/books?id=bnQHAQAAMAAJ&dq=rosenthal+1930 links into the relevant snippet while https://books.google.com/books?id=bnQHAQAAMAAJ loses the snippet. Betty Logan (talk) 15:47, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

These seem to be the different permutations:

1. https://books.google.com/books?id=Fgya85u7S-4C&pg=PA4&dq=anarcho-capitalism+right+libertarian (full page)
2. https://books.google.com/books?id=Fgya85u7S-4C&pg=PA4&q=anarcho-capitalism+right+libertarian#v=onepage (full page)
3. https://books.google.com/books?id=Fgya85u7S-4C&pg=PA4&q=anarcho-capitalism+right+libertarian (snippet)

Deleting the search terms altogether in the two "full page" options simply removes the highlighting per https://books.google.com/books?id=Fgya85u7S-4C&pg=PA4. However, if you are accessing the source through the snippet view (such as https://books.google.com/books?id=bnQHAQAAMAAJ&q=rosenthal+1930) you break the link completely if you remove the search term (see https://books.google.com/books?id=bnQHAQAAMAAJ). Betty Logan (talk) 16:28, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks so much! Obviously, I need to purge my cleaner and start from scratch. I'm a little surprised that dq does what you say it does, but obviously it has a place when there's a page number for sure. I plan on thinking about how to solve this before plowing ahead. Seriously, thanks for all your thinking on this. Smasongarrison (talk) 15:34, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

You're spot on per the dq -- I guess when I was first testing them, I got a a subset of cases. Obviously, dq, q, #v, pg, lpg need to stay, until I can figure out how to selectively remove dq only when it isn't relevant (so no pages or if it doesn't match q, then I think that it's a hold over from previous searches). It's a challenging puzzle, but part of why I'm doing this url trimming is to improve my regex writing. Smasongarrison (talk) 15:56, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

"Underlinked"

So just which further links should be added to American Yacht Club (Massachusetts)? Yes, the article could do with expansion, but at present everything which is sensible to link is linked. Please curb your bot's over-enthusiastic tagging, which defaces the encyclopedia and wastes the time of other editors. You are responsible for all your bot's edits. This tagging was disruptive. Please take more care. Thanks. PamD 08:47, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Ah, I see it's not a bot - so please check your edits before hitting "Save". You are responsible for all the edits you do using AWB, and the rate at which you're editing makes me wonder whether you're actually looking at the articles. Changing curly quotes for straight quotes is fine, but some maintenance tags require human consideration. Thanks. PamD 10:10, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

I am looking at the articles. My primary focus has been trimming identifying information and refining my regex for that process. I'll see what I can do about curbing AWB tagging on stubs because it is a bit of a pain for all parties. Smasongarrison (talk) 14:04, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Broken typos

After your most recent batch of fixes, "Reconnaissance" is broken. AWB says "Nested quantifier +". I don't know what that piece of the RE is trying to say, or indeed if any of your fixes directly addressed that line, but can you take a look? David Brooks (talk) 16:44, 14 November 2018 (UTC) ETA: presumably this edit? Still, thanks for all the optimization work! David Brooks (talk) 17:37, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

oops. I'll fix that. Usually, I run awb after each bout of optimizations. (I had to proctor a test). Smasongarrison (talk) 21:35, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. I understand when real life intrudes (which is why I delayed sending this: wife's birthday :-) David Brooks (talk) 01:34, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 16

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Todd Heatherton, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Perfectionism (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:18, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Typo optimization

Thanks for all your good work speeding up the typo searching. I know each one takes microseconds but we do run them a lot of times and it all adds up to a substantial saving. Certes (talk) 18:45, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Sure thing! It's been a great way for me to improve my regex skills. Smasongarrison (talk) 03:24, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

I've learnt from it too, and I had a quick look to see if any of your techniques could be used elsewhere. I only spotted Illustrate and Headquarters, but they might suggest other patterns to look for. I'll leave any actual edits to you, as you obviously have the tools in place to check that the change is actually beneficial. Certes (talk) 00:01, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

I use https://regex101.com/ or https://regexr.com/ to compare the original to the change. I'm working on getting a more formal benchmark in R. Smasongarrison (talk) 00:44, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Do you have tools for finding suboptimal expressions? For example, I found Illustrate by running perl -ne 'print if s/(\(|\(\?\:|\|)(\w+)(\w|\[\w+\])(\|\w+)*\|\2([|)])/$1$2$3?$4$5/' on the page source to change str|st to str?. (My regex missed a second optimization that you found, and is inefficient, but it only runs once and takes less than a second.) Certes (talk) 10:14, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Smasongarrison. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Benedict Cumberbatch

Hi! I am a private information security professional and digital forensics investigator. I think the signatures are a breach of privacy and presence on Wikipedia could inadvertently assist counterfeiters. My professional suggestion is that it is removed. While this content can often be found elsewhere, I don't believe it aligns with Wikipedia's mission. If you can help at all please do!! I don't run across these often but they've always bugged me. Thanks! Jessica Persephonix (talk) 10:01, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi Jessica, I don't really have an interest in signatures. I'd suggest advocating your case wherever the signature template is. Smasongarrison (talk) 19:44, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

message for u

Smasongarrison,

tf u be removing my edits for f off

Kawhilaugh42 (talk) 01:33, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Ummm, what is your problem? Smasongarrison (talk) 02:26, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

One-half in chess articles

It appears that you are moving through the alphabet, applying a set of edits to many articles, including replacing ½ with ⁠1/2⁠. This was undone at Bobby Fischer and at Chess; for some discussion, see Talk:Bobby Fischer#Fractions. You may wish to join that discussion. My own recommendation would be that you refrain from this particular edit on articles on chess, but I would be happy to see what you have to say about it, if anything. Bruce leverett (talk) 03:15, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Your AWB run on Google

Hi! Thanks for your recent wiki cleanup relating to external links. However, I noticed two oddities in your recent such edit on Google, namely:

• The URL https://support.google.com/faqs/answer/174717?hl=en was cut of its hl=en parameter, which defines the target language of the page. I'd argue it doesn't need removal. Furthermore, the questionmark was left in place, which I assume is incorrect.
• https://www.google.com/search?q=anagram was replaced with https://www.{{citation needed|date=November 2018}}?q=anagram. I realize google.com/search is not a proper source for just about all cases, but in this specific one, the source backs up a claim made about what happens when you search for "anagram".

It'd be lovely if you could check whether those were intentional or errorneous. Regards. Lordtobi (✉) 07:51, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

The language removal is intentional, the trailing ? is not. The google search, usually is a problem that I manually fix, but in this case it should have been left. Thanks for catching those. I'll tweak the google edit. Smasongarrison (talk) 14:48, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Google book templates

Can you please not add these to medical articles. It is tough getting a large number of templates to work across a couple of hundred languages. And it works fine without them. Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:53, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

They shouldn't be affecting medical journal articles, only books with google book urls already. Or do you mean wikipedia articles on medical topics? The reason why I'm adding in this templates is because google books tracks a lot of identifying information, that shouldn't be included -- and this template is a fairly straightforward way to purge that tracking info without breaking links. Smasongarrison (talk) 00:02, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

TV Media Enquiry

Dear Mason,

Theo Jolliffe here from BriteSpark Films in London - I hope you are well.

We are currently researching for an engineering documentary that will be going into production in early 2019. I am interested in some the Wikipedia edits you have made and would love to find out a little bit more about your interests.

If you could email me at theo.jolliffe@britesparkfilms.com I would love to have a quick chat.

Best wishes, Theo — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.45.130.154 (talk) 10:08, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

FYI

See edit summary here. Daniel Case (talk) 14:15, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

I'd suggest messaging the main developers of awb about it. Smasongarrison (talk) 15:46, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Bidhu Bhushan Ray

Dear Mason, thanks for improving the page, and for removing the stub tag. However, I have an issue. Why does "USA" have to be changed to "US"? The latter is a commonly used short form, but surely "USA" is the officially accepted form.

BTW, I like your useful wiki things. Amuk (talk) 08:35, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

I think that the official abbreviation is US. You can ask over at Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser, where they implemented this correction. Smasongarrison (talk) 17:00, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes, Wikipedia normally uses "U.S." or "US", per WP:NOTUSA. Certes (talk) 17:03, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

ThanksSmasongarrison (talk) 17:12, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, Mason and Certes. Amuk (talk) 05:15, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Recent edit to All models are wrong

Hi, on December 14, you made an edit to All models are wrong. The edit generated an error: "No text given for quotation (or equals sign used in the actual argument to an unnamed parameter)"; as a result of the generated error, the quotation, which previously displayed correctly, no longer displayed. Additionally, the edit incorrectly removed an ellipsis.

The generated error was corrected by editor John Z; the quotation now displays correctly. The ellipsis was restored by me.  SolidPhase (talk) 18:07, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing the error. However, leading ellipsiss shouldn't be in any quote. They are only needed to indicate omissions within a quote. See MOS:ELLIPSIS Smasongarrison (talk)

About the ellipsis, the elided text is the first part of the sentence. My understanding of general English usage was that an ellipsis is appropriate in that context. I looked in MOS:ELLIPSIS: I did not see where it states that in such a context an ellipsis should not be used.

I have just looked in the Chicago Manual of Style (2006). It has a section (§11.65, which expands on §11.54) entitled "Ellipsis points at beginning and end of quotations". That tells that it "normally" supports your position. Parts of the section, however, are contradicted by the MLA Handbook for Writers of Research Papers (2009: §3.7.5); the MLA, though, does not seem to explicitly address ellipses at the beginning. Thus, there seems to be some disagreement among style guides about ellipses; my (prior) understanding was inaccurate, and I am not sure what is appropriate here.

In any case, the Wikipedia article should follow Wikipedia MOS. Can you quote MOS here?

SolidPhase (talk) 20:40, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

I just looked at the Cambridge Guide to English Usage (2004). It has a section entitled "Ellipsis". The section tells that the rules for "legal and scholarly quotations" are sometimes different than the general rules. It also tells that, under the general rules, a "simplification of older practice with ellipsis points is dispensing with them at the start of a quotation". My training was decades ago, and was primarily in scholarly writing; so that explains why I believed that the ellipsis should be at the start of the quotation

This does not determine what the Wikipedia MOS requires, of course.  SolidPhase (talk) 21:37, 15 December 2018 (UTC)