User talk:AManWithNoPlan

real life and may not respond swiftly to queries.

Please don't template me! Everybody makes mistakes, and this user finds user warning templates impersonal and disrespectful. If there's something you'd like to say, please take a moment to write a comment below in your own words.

Thanks

... for fixing those DOIs. It's a vital maintenance task that is not normally listed or tracked, but makes a very important contribution to Wikipedia's linkage to other resources! JFW | T@lk 19:31, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have also been submitting hundreds of ones that should work to www.doi.org. Many of then are already fixed. Yippee. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 17:50, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My thanks also (noticed this fix). If you have experience in submitting DOIs to dx.doi.org does that mean it would be possible to get

doi:10.1001/archinte.142.10.1816 to point here again by updating their record? Thanks Rjwilmsi 18:57, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks for this. That had been confusing the hell out of me! How did you know they were there? SmartSE (talk) 16:32, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I work hard to fix bad DOI's and Handles in General. So, I have just developed a sense of what can be wrong with a DOI. AManWithNoPlan (talk)

Hi AManWithNoPlan,

Just wanted to drop a quick note and say thanks for all the doi fixes you've been doing. I'm still working on the carbon cycle page plus the new pages I'm writing for the section and I sure appreciate any help I can get - especially on such things as citations, which I'm not the best at. Thanks again!

Daniel Lee (talk) 20:56, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for cleaning up my citation with the template at Negative temperature. RJFJR (talk) 14:35, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, AManWithNoPlan. Just stopping by to wish you a Happy Wiki-Birthday from the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! Anastasia (talk) 19:53, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help with Khin Sok - that was super fast - too fast for me
All the bestWikirictor (talk) 16:31, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thanks for another suite of fixes to Citation bot; you'll be delighted to learn that after a very long-awaited free weekend I've finally beaten the issues that had held me back from rolling the bot out to production, so all your hard-written fixes are now live! Yay!

Now that we have a CI setup that I'm confident in (and I'm more confident in how it operates), I'm going to suggest a more positive approach to bug fixes. I don't think we need to make as extensive use of the development branch as we have been, so suggest now that we work directly on the master branch, using a separate pull request for each bug. If each pull request includes a test case that addresses the bug (ideally by modifying an existing test case, to avoid test suite bloat), then when the PR goes green on Travis, I'll merge it directly into master and pull it to the production site so that the fix is available immediately. We can use the development branch for more significant infrastructure-level changes as and when these are necessary (which is hopefully rarely).

Cheers, and thanks again for your help in maintaining the bot. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 07:31, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for cleaning up the jstor cites on several pages. I apologize, those were generated automatically by visual editor. I'm curious if the right way to go is to use

In your editing preference you turn on "Citation expander: automatically expand and format citations using Citation bot" and then you can use it. As for the "easy" way to use it, I often just put urls or doi's into refercence like <ref>http://www.jstor.org/stable/dsafdfd</ref><ref>10.234132/3241234</ref> and then run the bot. I should note that some jstors do not get recognized, and might require you to explicitly <ref>{{cite journal|jstor=34231234faddfasdfdas}}</ref> AManWithNoPlan (talk) 03:06, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@AManWithNoPlan Thanks for the great tip.Verbosmithie (talk) 11:02, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I recently made this bot: Template:Cleanup bare URLs/bot - thought you might be interested as an alternative bot control page idea. It has some advantages and disadvantages. The advantages are the page can be set to extended confirmed access thus limiting who can use it. The 'requester' is easily determined by looking at who last edited the page (no oauth etc). It is all done on-site using normal editing, no external URL or interface to access the bot, which users like. -- GreenC 14:15, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I generally put the names of newspapers in italics inside a citation for the publisher, (publisher=name here) similar to how they are displayed in Wikipedia article titles: The New York Times. Isn't italics for the name of a newspaper the norm/standard here? I haven't found any policy which states this explicitly, maybe can you point me to one for some clarity? Thanks! ---Avatar317^(talk) 23:35, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Could you point me to a specific example? AManWithNoPlan (talk) 23:40, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure you don’t mean the |work= and its aliases such as |newspaper=? Such as

"title". newspaper. publisher.

AManWithNoPlan (talk) 23:40, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

the publisher is ‘The New York Times Company’, while the newspaper is ‘The New York Times’. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 23:49, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I should have provided a diff for the edits, I had assumed it was happening on many articles. Here:

San Jose Mercury News ---Avatar317^(talk) 00:23, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

The error is the use of the wrong template parameter. Publishers are not italics. Perhaps I should add a list of things put in publisher= that should be in work/journal/magazine/newspaper= (Which is automatically made italics) and fix them AManWithNoPlan (talk) 00:36, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Once this is merged in, the bot will start fixing the citations and converting select publishers to the work parameter, which automatically does italics. https://github.com/ms609/citation-bot/pull/1679 AManWithNoPlan (talk) 04:06, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, that is what I was doing wrong, thank you for explaining that; I'll use those fields properly from now on. It would be good to improve the bot's behavior like that, because I would guess I haven't been the only one who mis-understood how to use those parameters. --Thanks!! ---Avatar317^(talk) 05:09, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Like with this edit on John Adams? That's about it. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 12:10, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

the magazine/newspaper/journal/work is the actual thing. The publisher is the corporation. So, for example a special commemorative child’s coloring book might have publisher=NYT, but it certainly does not have work=NYT. For example two, work=Life Magazine but publisher=Time/Life or something similar. Lastly when work=publisher, you don’t include publisher. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 12:38, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

		Citation Tool Operator's Barnstar
		Thanks so much for your tireless work cleaning up citations, and in particular for finding proper URLs to Proquest for List of Canadian comedians. I shall endeavour to follow your example in the future. – Reidgreg (talk) 22:41, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply ]

BTW, do you know if there is something extra that should be added like |url-access= in {{cite web}} or {{subscription required}} immediately following the citation template? – Reidgreg (talk) 22:41, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't appreciate your removing the so-called "proxy" from the Bolton Hall (California) article, not from any of the others which you have "fixed," because now thousands of people with L.A. Public Library cards can't get in to follow the link. I'm sure you didn't think of this, but how are we now to see what the source said? BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 05:16, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am very aware of this problem, but Wikipedia has actual policies against proxy urls. People just need to login with a library card. The links before are accessible by a few people who are physically at a library, while the fixed links are accessible to anyone in the world with a library card from most libraries. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 11:54, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, please forgive me if this has been requested already, but it would be stupendous if CitationBot could be rigged for use on Wikiversity, specifically WikiJMed. I'm not a programmer so I'm not sure how to implement it myself, if it even can be. It would save LOTS of time! Cheers, LovelyLillith (talk) 02:58, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

at the very least you should be able to copy and paste the source of a wiki university page to a Wikipedia sandbox page, run the bot, then copy source back. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 03:05, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

for your work on adding new IDs like SemScholar to citation bot. This will be most useful for the broader vision of the WikiCite project. – SJ + 15:26, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Basically you need an efficient way to open many tabs. I know two approaches: 1) a JavaScript user script which does the repetitive clicking for you, so you can use the gadget but focus on the important part (check the diff, save or discard); 2) some semi-automation to call the bot itself, check the diffs afterwards. Which of the two approaches are you interested in? I can write you some example code if you email me, it's a bit tedious to attach code here. Nemo 08:08, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I still see some 500 IEEE URLs in templates though. I would certainly not recommend you spend time doing them manually, but it takes less than 10 min to set yourself up for (2). Nemo 07:23, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

At least one of those I tried shows no diff with the gadget, so I guess the new detection method you added just doesn't cover those cases yet. Nemo 07:31, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It only works for pages with DOIs. The URL removal code does not catch all cases, a variety of reasons (some dois resolve to a choose where to get the paper site). AManWithNoPlan (talk) 18:29, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A second problem is that the code does not detect dead urls, which some are. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 20:09, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the URLs which point to a splashscreen can only be solved by looking at the document number IIRC. Nemo 23:11, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Although we could just remove all the URL when we get a splashscreen and there's already a DOI. Nemo 08:28, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nice! Scraping the HTML is sometimes unnecessarily tedious, for instance for the HTML entities, but I did that too, mostly when I needed to check the titles manually. If you want I can write you a couple links of Python which will do what you want with the API. You can also use quarry:query/31224, it catches a lot of articles where the bot didn't go yet (or not since the addition of new VisualEditor-made citations, which are usually the source of those worldcat links). Nemo 08:28, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That was a nice ride. Looks like it barely made a dent in the other redundant URLs: the list is still around 45k. Nemo 06:10, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

50K more to go. This is gonna take a while. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 15:34, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

please help translate this message into your local language via meta

The 2019 Cure Award

In 2019 you were one of the top ~300 medical editors across any language of Wikipedia. Thank you from Wiki Project Med for helping bring free, complete, accurate, up-to-date health information to the public. We really appreciate you and the vital work you do! Wiki Project Med Foundation is a thematic organization whose mission is to improve our health content. Consider joining here, there are no associated costs.

Thanks again :-) -- Doc James along with the rest of the team at Wiki Project Med Foundation 18:35, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Runs on lists like

I have it setup to actually not do several bot tasks in this run. This run is over all pages that have URLS that could be converted to a template parameter. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 22:00, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Such as what? doi.org, jstor.com, elsevier.com, etc...? While I don't really object to the task itself, it's the hogging of resources so small volume queries take forever to get to that concerns me.

b} 22:12, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Right now 'proquest.com'; 'doi.library.ubc.ca'; 'www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc'; 'www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed'; 'pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov'; 'worldcat.org'; 'openlibrary.org'; 'lccn.loc.gov'; 'europepmc.org'; 'citeseerx.ist.psu.edu'; 'pubmedcentralcanada.ca'; 'zbmath.org'; 'mathscinet.ams.org'; 'papers.ssrn.com'; 'osti.gov'; 'europepmc.org'; 'ieeexplore.ieee.org'; AManWithNoPlan (talk) 22:21, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, I've tested the gadget at various intervals (without saving the edits) and I didn't observe any slowdown. Nemo 07:11, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, right now I just ran it on

b} 18:13, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

There is someone else running a Category run. That seems to be the bigger problem (one of the reasons I do not have it running zotero for me). AManWithNoPlan (talk) 18:39, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A better scheduler really is needed..., in the meantime, I'll find who's clogging up the ressources.

b} 18:43, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Greetings. I see here that your edit removed a nature.com url because the doi resolved to the same url. That's understandable. However, in these circumstances, will you please add |doi-access=free so readers know that a free version is accessible for them to access if desired? That's why I added the url in the first place. Thank you. Biosthmors (talk) 18:47, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not automatically. The urls are almost never ever free in these cases. I might see if the bot can add that when the DOI database reports it as free. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 18:58, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes, things could be marked as free if the journals are in

b} 19:16, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Sounds like a job for the OABot. The open url doi thing will return "it is free" in many cases. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 19:27, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, it's trivial to get this done with OAbot, once the citation is cleaned up by citation bot. I have something like 200k such doi-access=free to add, citation bot is too slow for such amounts. Get User:OAbot unblocked if you want this kind of edit to happen! Nemo 20:44, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@

b} 22:10, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Headbomb, there's nothing to fix in the OAbot code. It can be launched for specific identifiers; there is no controversy on hdl and doi, for instance. Nemo 06:09, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@

b} 06:27, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

It does not do that if it's not told to do that. I don't plan to do that, but I already said so months ago. Nemo 15:16, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you said so months ago, you haven't said so

b} 16:27, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

It was said in the block review at least. I'm not especially interested in investing time in a repeat of that discussion, which featured way too much heat and too little light for my taste. It might happen in some future months or years that I feel like having enough energy for such discussions, but not now. So, once again, if people want OAbot's services they're free to ask its unblock and it will promptly resume adding doi-access etc. Nemo 12:49, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@

b} 20:14, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

See my post below; this bot needs to stop or this bot needs to be blocked until the issues are corrected. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:41, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

When using citation bot: please be more careful about not changing instances of {citation} to {cite book} (especially where the source is not a book) where the former is the established usage, as done here at Puget Sound faults, and other places. (Haven't I mentioned this before?) Nor should the first author's first/last be concatenated with preceding line, as it makes it harder to scan the citation for accuracy. Your attention to this would be appreciated. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:46, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I see the problem. It has a journal set which is invalid for citation, so it has to be changed to cite book. BUT, the journal is set to a comment which is a strange edge case. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 21:00, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

https://github.com/ms609/citation-bot/pull/2727 AManWithNoPlan (talk) 21:41, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have lost track of the number of times I have asked you to stop changing citation style, yet you continue. On EVERY medical article I edit, the citation style is to assure that titles are blue-linked when free full text is available. This is to benefit our readers, who may rarely know what a DOI is, much less that they can click on a DOI link to get free full text, while it is universal across all of Wikipedia that a blue-linked title leads to text. What can I do to get you stop removing URLs to free full text? When there is a PMC link, titles are automatically blue-linked, but this is NOT the case for non-PMC free full links. If you are going to continue these bot edits, you need to distinguish PMC free full text from non-PMC free full text. Going forward, unless you correct this, I will revert your edits without attempting to save the good portions of the edits, because although I have asked many times, the faulty bot edits are creating an unfair burden of excess work. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:39, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Citation bot did something weird here, I think. I am about to fix it, but if I am making a mistake, feel free to fix it back. Bruce leverett (talk) 14:28, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fractional title links goes against the wiki styles. Just because IBM is in the title of a book, does not mean it should be linked. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 14:31, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, it's still not right; but I'll try to fix that. Bruce leverett (talk) 14:36, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You beat me to it, thanks. Bruce leverett (talk) 14:38, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]