User talk:Rjwilmsi

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


The Status Bot has been blocked.
See my last edit here.

Archives


Contents

[edit] AfD nomination of Trevor Lyman

An article that you have been involved in editing, Trevor Lyman, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trevor Lyman. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice?

[edit] add

[edit] Language tags

Hello. I noticed that you have added language tags to a number of articles like Antoine Clot or some Angoulême comics festival articles. These tags do'nt seem to have any effect (page looks the same, no categories added) and make the page more cluttered when editing. I'm removing them from the^Angoulême pages but will leave the rest alone for now. Could you please explain what the benefit of these tags is? Fram (talk) 07:21, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

They are added so that the enclosed text is tagged as foreign-language so AWB knows not to apply the English list of typo fixes to the text. If you remove the language tags it means the article may be incorrectly 'fixed'. Thanks Rjwilmsi (talk) 07:31, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Has this been discussed anywhere? We should not (in my opinion) add tags to articles that do nothing but improve the working of some automated tool. The tags are a nuisance when editing (certainly for newbies), since anything that interrupts the normal reading makes editing harder. If this means that AWB needs to be changed or that people using it have to be more careful, so be it. I do wonder how you (or AWB) decided which titles to tag like that. When I look at this[1], Le curé was perhaps tagged because it shouldn't be corrected to "cure" (butis curé really a usual misspelling of cure?), and I have no idea why the second title was tagged (les instead of less? I hope not, since that would make Les Paul rather angry :-) ). Thanks for the quick reply, by the way. Fram (talk) 07:53, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
In my opinion adding these tags is correct, as it highlights to all editors (AWB and others) that the enclosed text is in a foreign language so shouldn't be corrected based on English spelling. Also, it sets the encoding languages for browsers so that languages with different alphabets display correctly (this is in the Wikipedia manuals but I can't find the link ATM). In the above example jugement would be corrected to 'judgement' if it were an English word, so tagging this prevents this (in AWB, WikEd) and warns editors (otherwise). On this basis all foreign-language text should be tagged (if I had a button to do it I would...). If I (manually) didn't tag all foreign words in an article it's because Wikipedia is a work in progress ;) Thanks Rjwilmsi (talk) 09:30, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Looking at template:Lang, the crucial bit to me is the end of the intro: "such subtags should only be added if there is an important reason to use them." I don't think the prevention of incorrect spelling corrections is sucha crucial reason, seeing that in most of these articles, no errors were made in the years they contained French text and had no such tags (e.g. there were no spelling corrections, automated or manual, on Antoine Clot between October 2006 and the time you tagged the book titles[2]. So it looks to me like you are making edits without benefit (since there is no evidence that there is actually a problem) and with a slight disadvantage (they are annoying for the casual editor). For titles, you often already have the combination of double ' and double [. Adding double { to this makes it even harder to read. Fram (talk) 11:42, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for finding the right link. Comments:
  1. spell checkers are clearly listed under the Rationale section, . i.e. it explicitly authorises the use of language tags as I have been doing.
  2. my interpretation of the guidance is that subtags are ISO codes for regional variations of a language as opposed to the main language, so the page simply says use ISO 639-1 over 639-2 (which I have been doing).
  3. If formatting in the above articles is confusing to editors, I think it's because there are items in bold italics, and it's my understanding that this formatting goes against the WP:MOS.

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

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

[edit] Scott Holden

[edit] Brighton College

Thank you very much for your typo and spelling fixes on this article, it is a usually thankles task to perform, and I am deeply grateful for your effort. I made lots of those spelling errors as I'm dyslexic, so it's hard for me to notice mistakes. Philip.t.day (talk) 10:01, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

No problem, it's easy with WP:AWB/T. Rjwilmsi 17:11, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Automated I?

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

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

Mavigogun (talk) 04:58, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

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

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

[edit] Doubling consonants with a suffix

Hi. Over the past week, I've noticed edits you've made replacing valid Canadian spellings on Canadian articles with (valid) American spellings instead. Per policy, valid spelling choices should not be changed if the article is primarily related to a location with a specific variant of English. The specific issue in my case is the change from targetting to targeting, and targetted to targeted. Per policy, and considering American and British English spelling differences#Doubled consonants, could you remove this "mis-spelling" from your script. Thank you. Mindmatrix 18:25, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

It's not my intention to correct regional variations of spelling (I'm British btw). In the case of 'targetting' [sic] and 'targetted' [sic] I specifically checked the OED and wiktionary and the 'double t' variant is not listed. I've now checked dictionary.com and it's not there either. On this basis I don't think my edits are incorrect. Please advise if you have a link for these words. Rjwilmsi 18:38, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
It's something I see fairly frequently too, like all over the website of the British government (e.g. [3]). I don't know how the OED works with regionalisms and I don't have mine handy right now ... I'd say it's a judgment call either way. Ford MF (talk) 18:53, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tallahassee Scorpions

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

See for yourself [4] – I made a grammar fix. Rjwilmsi 21:20, 14 June 2008 (UTC)