User talk:John of Reading

'aly' help

John, if I gave you a very big Regex could you run a database dump to find mainspace articles like you did User:John of Reading/X1 for shi. Regards, Sun Creator^(talk) 00:55, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, of course. But it may be Monday before I get round to doing it. -- John of Reading (talk) 07:08, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. Monday would be perfect as quite a bit to do before the Regex will be ready. Regards, Sun Creator^(talk) 01:06, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

\b\S[a-z-]+aly\b(?![^\s\.]*\.\w)(?<!\.[^\s\.]*aly)(?<!\b([BDEHhMS]|Ma|Bab|Sheb|[CK]oulib|[Kk]oijb|[Tt]simb|[Tt]symb|presumb|Ob|Kub|Alc|[Ss]c|[Dd]|[DH]ad|Greich|[Kk]amchad|Med|Miller-Gid|[BJ]and|Khyrmand|Kharmand|Charmand|Tind|Kund|Kod|Od|[BDHFKMmNSY]e|[KMmSW]he|unahe|Rathe|Ballyhe|[Mm]ealy-mouthed|Sme|Conne|Glene|Ken?ne|Kinn?s?e|McNe|Kilte|[BCG]re|Ste|Sque|Que|[Yy]e|Mahaf|Off|Of|Orf|Ag|[MZ]ag|Shukyurag|[Mm]eg|[Cc]ardiomeg|[Ss]plenomeg|[Hh]epatosplenomeg|[Cc]litoromeg|[Hh]epatomeg|[Vv]entriculomeg|[Aa]cromeg|Beng|Karing|Karg|Al-Ah|Mafah|Ch|Mech|Verch|Gh|Fegh|Mih|Csikszentmih|[Aa]ceph|[Aa]nenceph|[Oo]xyceph|[Ee]nceph|[Mm]egalenceph|[Mm]icroenceph|[Mm]icrenceph|[Ss]chizenceph|[Dd]olichoceph|[Mm]icroceph|[Tt]rigonoceph|[Cc]ynoceph|[Tt]rigonoceph|[Mm]acroceph|[Hh]ydroceph|[Aa]utoceph|([Mm]icro)?[Bb]rachyceph|[Pp]olyceph|[Hh]oloprosenceph|[Ll]issenceph|[Pp]lagioceph|[Mm]acroceph|Roh|[Ss]h|al-Sh|[MP]ash|Gadzh|Khadzh|Karadzh|Karag[ao]dzh|Kh[ao]dzh|Sarydzh|Mi|[Bb]r?i|Mari|Materi|Vi|Dzi|Spezi|Zidj|Khodj|Manj|Aloj|Khoj|Bak|sk|Seik|Chamal|[Bb]agval|Hel|Hil|Call|Moll|Mull|Forml|Mul|Bagul|Adam|Angam|Ernakulam-Angam|Pham|Chem|Rem|Adim|Alm|Chronom|Sokhom|Deuteranom|[Aa]nom|Som|Arm|Gorm|Kum|An|[KN]an|Asan|Adn|Juven|Sermn|Fin|Ann|Nunn|Bon|Don|Gorn|Adyn|Khyn|Rayn|[Fl]o|Podp|Lilip|Karunagapp|Kanjirapp|Thottapp|Arp|Esp|rozhoup|[BEe]r|[HK]ar|Gr|Fakhr|Kr|Kir|Beyuk-Pir|Ser|[DM]or|Ur|Dzhur|Zr|Vas|Is|Phongs|Ros|Al-Fais|Fais|Ass|Mass|Thess|Mus|Nat|Naft|Neft|Napht|Bit|Vit|[Ii]t|Cast|ou|Dou|Qu|Zhu|Nagav|Sabdatharav|zlikvidov|Donov|Úv|Al-Dow|Metw|[BKL]ay|Kariy|Gamiy|[BC]az|Ghaz|Gamz|[Kk]hunz|Ogorz)aly)(?<!\b([Aa]c?cident|[Aa]c?ctu|[Aa]ddition|[Aa]nn?u|[Aa]utomatic|[Bb]asic|[Bb]ucc|[Cc]ommerci?|[Cc]ongression|[Dd]iagon|[Dd]ialect|[Dd]igit|([Nn]on|[Uu]n)?-?[Dd]iplomatic|[Ee]n?vironment|[Ee]soteric|[Ee]speci|([Uu]n)?[Ee]v[ae]ntu?|[Ff]at|[Ff]inanci?|[Gg]ener|[Gg]eni|[Gg]radu|[Hh]istoric|[Ii]ll?eg|([Cc]o)?[Ii]ncident|[Ii][nm]parti|[Ii]m?mediat|[Ii]ndividu|[Ii]n?niti?|[Ll]it?ter|[Ll]oc|[Ll]ogistic|([Dd]is)?[Ll]oy|[Mm]agic|[Mm]argin|[Mm]unicip|[Mm]utu|([Ii]nter)?[Nn]ation?|([Uu]n?)?[Nn]atur|[Nn]orm|[Oo]r|[Oo]c?casion|([IiUu]n)?[Oo]f?fici|[Oo]ri?gin|[Pp]arti?|[Pp]erson|[Pp]articular|[Pp]henomen|[Pp]hysic|[Pp]ractic?|[Pp]resumb|[Pp]robab|[Pp]roportin|[Rr]e|[Ss]im[ai]lar|[Ss]peci|[Ss]pecific|([Uu]n)?[Qq]uestion|[Tt]empor|[Tt]radition|[Tt]rivi|[Uu]nilater|([Uu]n)?[Uu]su)aly)(?<!\b(?:[Rr]iv|[Nn]e|[Hh]e|[Aa]dmir|sundaymailit|bodyguardit|[Tt]ot|iwdwsit|unahe|era|yearendit|tav)aly)

I did say very big. Copy/paste the above. Regards, Sun Creator^(talk) 02:17, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

 Doing... It says it will take about three hours. -- John of Reading (talk) 06:58, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

 Done 2813 matches listed at User:John of Reading/X1. -- John of Reading (talk) 09:19, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! Quite a lot to be looking at. Regards, Sun Creator^(talk) 09:29, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Is there a quick way to post a list with leading "# " (or even "* ") as you did in User:John of Reading/X1? Regards, Sun Creator^(talk) 13:14, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

The database scanner created the list for me within AWB. To post a list from AWB, use List > Save list... and choose "Text file with wiki markup"; this adds the asterisk and the square brackets. Then open the saved file in Notepad and paste it into the Wikipedia edit window. -- John of Reading (talk) 13:18, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Nice! Have put this to good use already. :) Regards, Sun Creator^(talk) 16:49, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

So many exceptions to the -aly rule having to rethink the approach. Regards, Sun Creator^(talk)

At your convenience could you run the following to check for -ably exceptions. ably is related to -aly and could be considered a subset of it.

\b(\S[a-z-]*)(?:(aab|ba|abl|abb))l+yl?\b(?<=(?:rib|rob|urb|lac|ecc|[dlmprty]ic|voc|ead|[om]id|[aeu]nd|aud|[ain]ce|[rs]ee|[anr]ge|ake|[lp]le|rme|use|ove|ize|[ae]ff|tig|[eo]ach|augh|[ru]ish|vai|[eo]ci|edi|ifi|reli|ami|eni|xpi|ari|[ai]ti|nvi|[eht]ak|ink|ark|sal|mbl|ail|[eo]ll|[is]ol|cul|lam|tim|amm|[ht]om|orm|sum|san|[miv]en|[eu]gn|[afglm]in|amn|[dis]on|cap|[au]lp|[ao]pp|[ep]ar|ecr|[dflmnpstuw]er|pher|over|[ms]ir|[dlmnvx]or|err|[es]tr|[cdos]ur|[adnv]is|ens|pos|ers|ass|[cf]us|\b[Uu]s|[el]at|ubt|[aeiu]ct|[bdfmpruv]it|[aeu]nt|not|ept|ort|\b[Ss]t|est|ett|[fmprt]ut|rgu|alu|equ|ssu|iev|[egr]iv|[lmr]ov|erv|low|joy|[ns]iz)(?:aab|ba|abl|abb)l+yl?)\b(?![^\s\.]*\.\w)(?<!\.[^\s\.]*)

Thankss! Regards, Sun Creator^(talk) 03:08, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

 Doing... It says this one will take five hours - when we bought this computer I didn't realise I would be doing so much data-crunching. With 3% of the job done it has found only one match, correctly finding "notablly" in Emu. -- John of Reading (talk) 07:05, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

 Done Just 44 articles listed at User:John of Reading/X1. No false positives, though some of the articles have been fixed since my database dump was created. -- John of Reading (talk) 09:47, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I will do my own database dump before the end of the month if usage allows. Regards, Sun Creator^(talk) 10:23, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Not many matches but zero false positives(!), only one article with the word 'generablly' was changed to 'generably' when it is best left alone by this rule which has since been adjusted to ignore 'generablly'. What do you think of a rule like this that won't be the fastest(because it's an -ending rule) but will correct a potential 312 words that could have 7 variant misspellings; 7 * 312 is a potential 2184 typos that it can correct. It's over the 25 typo minimum required, but you are the one who raise the issue of speed(profiling typos) so welcome you comments on the situation. Regards, Sun Creator^(talk) 19:53, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure about "potential fixes". If you or I use the regexp and the X1 list to fix those 44 articles, then we'll know that if the rule is installed in WP:AWB/T it won't currently find anything to fix at all. I don't know! -- John of Reading (talk) 20:31, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

That's true, but in 6 months time there will be another 40+ typos, will you want to run the database scanner again? - and if you did would you do for each of the 3000 rules that AWB has. I've added the rule to extras Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/Typos/Extra, because while the rule resolves 25+ typos it takes about 300ms to run on List_of_Doctor_Who_universe_creatures_and_aliens; and I'm aiming for rules that exceeds 1 correction for every 1ms taken. Regards, Sun Creator^(talk) 21:12, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

How about an AWB with an optional set of "expensive" rules? Then the Typoscan project could have then turned on when doing the database scan, and also have them turned on when working on the articles found by that scan. -- John of Reading (talk) 06:00, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

I've download a copy of the database now. Is it possible to reduce the size by removing everything that is not in the mainspace? Regards, Sun Creator^(talk) 18:14, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

In theory, yes, because it is all encoded as XML. But I don't know of any built-in way to do it. -- John of Reading (talk) 18:22, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

I think having some way of selecting which optional set of rules to use would be helpful. Like having fast rules for yourself. In WP:WikiCleaner it is possible to select which page to load the typo rules from, that can help greatly with testing by having new rules that you don't want live for other AWB editors. WikiCleaner has the optional way, because you can switch sets of rules on or off, so you could switch off the slow 'Endings' section to make the process faster. Also I'd like the option of setting grammar or insignificant edits off because you can encounter edits that break the rule Avoid making insignificant or inconsequential edits. Regards, Sun Creator^(talk) 11:29, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

On reflection, the speed isn't too much of an issue, as long as the typo check only takes a second or two on ordinary-length articles. I can turn off the typo check (and the genfixes, but that's another issue) when I get to "List of AAA" and turn them on again when I get to "List of ZZZ".

But the "insignificant edits" idea is a good one. I'd like a way for some of the rules to be treated as part of the "genfixes" or even the "minor genfixes", so that they are caught by those checkboxes on the "skip" tab. I'd like those rules not to appear in the edit summary, too. -- John of Reading (talk) 15:56, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Lyndsay Pace (wiki page)

Hello , Im not sure if Im writing to the right section , I just eddited a wiki Page of Lyndsay Pace , we was doing it together with her , and we took the official bio from her official website http://lyndsaypace.com but we even didnt finish editing and the page was blocked and came back to the old one , any help will be really appriciated, Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Promogang (talk • contribs) 12:19, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Lyndsay Pace (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

That's right, I removed the extra text because it was copied from the official website. There are two problems with this:

• Text from external websites is presumed to be copyrighted by the website owners unless there is clear evidence to the contrary. Copyrighted text cannot be added to Wikipedia. See Wikipedia:Copyright violations.
• Text from a musician's biography is likely to be too promotional in tone to be used in an encyclopedia article. See "Wikipedia is not advertising". -- John of Reading (talk) 13:24, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

WP:MMA

Thanks for helping to make MMA articles on wikipedia better! In September 168 people made a total of 956 edits to MMA articles. I noticed you havn't listed yourself on the WikiProject Mixed martial arts Participants page. Take a look, sign up, and don't forget to say hi on the talk page. Kevlar (talk) 03:52, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

No, I edit articles with typos whatever the topic area. But thanks anyway. -- John of Reading (talk) 10:57, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Help page

Hi, thanks for the Lord/Baron heads-up. Rojomoke (talk) 22:38, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Eat Smart Move More Weigh Less Page

Hi John! I am trying to edit my page- Eat Smart Move More Weigh Less- because it is tagged as an advertisment and it is not meant to be. I feel like we have done the best we can with writing it objectively, and I was wondering if you had any tips or guidelines to how we can make it more objective so that we can no longer recieve the "advertisement" flag. We just want to have this page as a resource for people to learn more about our program before signing up for it, not as an advertisement. I reviewed the comments you made about certain phrases such as "evidence-based", but that is the truth and we attached published articles to back that up, so I am unsure how to rephrase that. I am new to Wikipedia so please forgive me if this is way off course, and I would appreciate your guidance. Thank you for your time!! Madifehling (talk) 15:13, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Eat Smart, Move More, Weigh Less (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

It's confession time: I really don't like to judge other people's prose, and don't know how much rewording is needed before the {{advert}} tag can be removed. But a couple of weeks back I did ask the opinion of the editor Mean as custard (talk · contribs), who specialises in articles that seem to be over-promotional, whether or not they are intended as deliberate advertising. I suggest you post at User talk:Mean as custard. I'm sorry not to be more helpful here. -- John of Reading (talk) 15:35, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, John! I will contact him and try to find out more information- thank you for your recommendation. I was also wondering why it would be a "conflict of interest" for me to update our Wikipedia page when I work for the oraganization- I feel like this would be a better way to post reliable information instead of a random citizen, so that all of the information on our page can be accurate. Just wondering how I can fix this or what a better way to post on the page would be. Thanks!! Madifehling (talk) 15:43, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

You can read about that at WP:COI. Roughly, information in Wikipedia articles should have been previously published in what we call reliable sources - books, news reports, academic journals etc - so that interested readers can check it for themselves. A "random citizen" is much more likely to follow those rules, writing only what he has found in the sources. An employee is likely to throw in extra information that hasn't been published anywhere, will be tempted to leave out negative information, and may be tempted to treat the Wikipedia article as an extension of the company's website.

The approved way for you to edit the article is to make suggestions and requests on the talk page, Talk:Eat Smart, Move More, Weigh Less, so that independent editors can make the decisions. -- John of Reading (talk) 15:56, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

I've cleaned it up quite a bit. Mean as custards initial concerns about external links and list of lessons both of which are now resolved. I've removed the tag although more work is required and I won't object to a readdition of the advertise tag in it's present state. Regards, Sun Creator^(talk) 16:02, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for watching my talk page! -- John of Reading (talk) 16:06, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you so much to both of you, I greatly appreciate your help!! Thank you Sun Creator for editing the page and cleaning it up- I will try to continue to make it less like an adervisement. Thanks again! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Madifehling (talk • contribs) 16:22, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you again for your help in removing the flags on our page! I am trying to take away our orphan status by linking up to other wiki pages, but I want to ask what you suggest as the best way to do this. Our main supporters and developers of Eat Smart Move More Weigh Less ( N.C. State University, NC Division of Public Health, and NC Cooperative Extension) do not have pages that list their programs or have appropriate places to mention our program. Could we link up to the Weight Management wikipedia page? Or similar ones like that? I saw that Weight Watchers and other diets were listed there, and we do not qualify ourselves at a "diet", but I wanted to run this by you first if this would come accross as advertising or any promotion. If you could just let me know your thoughts on this, that would be great! Thank you again for all of your time. Madifehling (talk) 18:05, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Management of obesity (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I think that article is too general to have a list of specific programs. I've removed some of them (with this edit) and that whole paragraph has no reliable sources and is fairly new. You could suggest something at Talk:Management of obesity to see what the regular editors of that page think about it. Please don't add the link yourself.

Being an "orphan" is not such a big deal. Category:Orphaned articles contains 171,000 pages. -- John of Reading (talk) 20:03, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your input, John, that is very helpful and I will look into that- or just leaving it as an Orphan if need be. Thank you again for taking the time to help me! Unfortunately, all the tags plus more have been added again, so I think I need to step back and take somet time on those first. Madifehling (talk) 13:33, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of User talk:Abhay Gupta Varanasi

A tag has been placed on User talk:Abhay Gupta Varanasi, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

Personal details and photograph identifiying a 10 year old child. Needs to be removed / revision deleted.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Biker Biker (talk) 13:43, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

I'll let the admins decide! I merely created the page with a welcome message. -- John of Reading (talk) 14:07, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

A beer for you!

Hmm, someone must have drunk it. -- John of Reading (talk) 17:51, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Phaleristics is correct and Faleristics isn't

Hello John. Would you mind assisting in a simple project, per discussion here? This article must not continue to use the title with the word spelt with an 'f'. No matter how common it seems, there is simply no call to use that spelling which is usually used only in Russia and some of the Balto-Slavic countries. And as I have contended in the past, it misleads people searching for this article, in spite of the excellent work you did. The trouble is I do not know how to do these two tasks. A mention in the article itself that some choose to misspell it with an 'f' is enough, and the article itself should be retitled. Then a redirect can be formed in case anyone enters the spelling with an 'f'. What do you think? Shall we keep the misspelling? I believe we ought to do away with it and let it suffice that a mispelt entry will redirect; and a brief mention of it in the article without making the misspelling something significant, which it is not.~©Djathinkimacowboy 07:28, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

(e/c) According to this handy tool, neither word is mentioned in any recognised dictionary. But I see from the talk page that Fdutil (talk · contribs), a specialist editor, agrees with you. So I suggest you make the move and see if anyone objects. I don't think your recent edits to the Faleristics article have improved it, by the way - it is clearly not "unreferenced", and your newly-added section cites no sources and does not appear to be written from a neutral point of view. -- John of Reading (talk) 07:54, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, a brief addendum: I'd be obliged if you looked at my 4 references (2 to Google, 2 to Amazon U.S.) at the bottom of the thread here, for discussion on talk page purposes only, to see why I think it is vital to correct this article title to Phaleristics and redirect from anyone entering Faleristics or even "Faleristiks".~©Djathinkimacowboy 07:50, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, an English-language source using the "Ph" spelling is convincing. -- John of Reading (talk) 08:00, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello John. I'm sorry for visiting here, I just wanted to check back...I can't tell if you are being serious or what with your above reply. I mean no offense, it's just difficult to understand what that means--are you sincere? We have many sources, in actual fact, that use both forms of spelling, but it is obvious the "ph" spelling is the correct one. I believe what has happened is the spelling with an "f" was a Russian influence. It begins to look as though it really makes no difference, which I think you may have expressed in the past. Anyway, let us keep this discussion at the article talk page, if you like. That way I won't flood your talk page with this. I feel it shouldn't really go much further if you still feel the use of the "f" is OK. Just let me know. Thank you.~©Djathinkimacowboy 20:16, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

No, there was no irony there. When I saw the Amazon search results I was convinced that "Ph" is the correct spelling for the article. -- John of Reading (talk) 20:20, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict):::::I am sorry, just wished to be sure. As to the article, I will look it over and see if there's anything I should revert there. All I can recall at the moment is adding George VI's interest in the subject which is certainly significant as a detail. So I cannot agree it fails to improve the article. And I do not edit articles by adding POV, OR or unsourced materials. IN fact it is my practice to remove such things from articles. :) ~©Djathinkimacowboy 20:23, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

I was referring to the section "Origin of the word "Faleristics"". -- John of Reading (talk) 20:31, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, you see about a year or so ago, there was some debate about the spelling--thus in the interim, someone put in something strangely worded. Your point is well taken--I think what I was doing over there was just struggling with what was already in the article. Frankly, I'm going to make an attempt to nominate AfD. That article is just one long silly sentence, and my reference to King George is very nearly out of context because there is no context. I could not find the word listed anyplace; I was contacted by collectors and experts who tell me the correct term used is "phaleristics" but then admitted that it isn't really a "recognized" word. I wouldn't use that since it is OR, but it gives you a sense of that article and its total lack of notability. After all, what notability does that have, except that it tells us the term being used only among those in the field of collecting?~©Djathinkimacowboy

Faleristics

Per your offer here, cheers John. That sort of work scares me because I have made a pig's ear of far less in the past. Otherwise I'd have tried it a while back. Would you please do it? Of course you know, there's a Barnstar in it for you....~©Djathinkimacowboy 12:36, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

 Done -- John of Reading (talk) 13:41, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Cheers for this http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Phaleristics&curid=4607709&diff=519017769&oldid=519017427 John. I feel badly because just after you did that I successfully renamed/moved another ill-advised article which is now Parka (coat).~©Djathinkimacowboy 13:59, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Therefore...

		All Around Amazing Barnstar
		For your wise assistance and generous nature. WP should be filled with those like you John.~©Djathinkimacowboy 13:59, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Cross Road (a byway)

Hello John, we talked in February when you kindly helped with my article. Can you now help me to do two things please so that I can get it successfully submitted? 1. Change the title to "Cross Road (an archaic meaning of Byway)"
and
2. Improve a Reference as follows: The mention of cross roads in The History of the Post Office from Its Establishment down to 1836 appears on page 66. You said you couldn't find it (as it wasn't indexed) but I've just found it by tracking under "Roads, condition of". Hopefully this completes the required referencing but please tell me if there's more needed. Thanks Jacobandtotty (talk) 13:04, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

I've mentioned page 66. I think the proper title should be "Cross road (byway)" according to the article title guideline. That's sentence case for the two words of the title, and the shortest possible "disambiguator" in brackets. I have therefore renamed the page to "Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Cross road (byway)". The sourcing looks good now, so I am tempted to click the "submit" button, but I'll leave that to you. -- John of Reading (talk) 13:54, 21 October 2012 (UTC)