User talk:Apoc2400

Archive1 (2005 - 2008)
Archive2 (January - June 2009)
Archive3 (July - December 2009)

Please add messages to me below. --Apoc2400

DYK for Li Zhi (mathematician)

On January 1, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Li Zhi (mathematician), which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Cirt (talk) 03:43, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sandstein/Nableezy

Hi Apoc2400. I would like to work on two things regarding what has happened to Nableezy. One is to file an appeal of Sandstein's decision which I will begin in my user space shortly. The second, concurrent to this, would be opening a User RfC on Sandstein regading his abuse of his admin powers. I have asked Gatoclass for some advice on how to proceed. I hope he responds soon. When I have drafts up in my user space, I will be contacting you for feedback. I hope you will co-sign both the appeal and the User RfC. Tiamut^talk 19:59, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I would suggest taking care of the appeal first. Either somehow at WP:AE or WP:ANI. Make sure to have a good and short description of what happened. I can help you with it, though I am not actually familiar with Nableezy. --Apoc2400 (talk) 20:14, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your feedback (here and at the subpage). I'm going to try and make it even more concise. Apparently, according to Sandstein, an appeal must be done at AE and it must be done by Nableezy. So if Nableezy does not want to done, I will bring it up at ANI to get feedback on what to do about Sandstein's abuse which has led to the chasing away of a very good editor. Thanks again for your thoughts. Tiamut^talk 22:53, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, Nableezy has decided to file an appeal at AE. Tiamut^talk 21:27, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

article Virtonomics

Hello, dear Apoc2400. Unfortunately, I have not much experience in the preparation of articles in the Wiki. This explains the large number of unsuccessful previous attempts to create this article. Virtonomics there long enough (more than 6 years in Russian under the name Virtonomica). In the Russian language Internet is indeed a very significant phenomenon, and perhaps the most popular project economic game. This business simulation actually use many Russian universities as a training program. In 2007 Virtonomica was recognized as the best business simulation in Russian language Internet. In English-speaking Internet has few references to Virtonomica (English-speaking project name - Virtonomics) because the game only recently translated into English. Here are some links to Russian-language sources about the game Virtonomica (Virtonomics):

Unfortunately, most sources still in Russian. I really hope that after all you do not erase this article, because this project really represents a very interesting phenomenon, and quite unique and useful for many people interested in business and economics. Sincerely, Sergomen —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sergomen1 (talk • contribs) 20:05, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! --Apoc2400 (talk) 20:37, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your help! Sergomen1 (talk) 21:15, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit filter request

Hello. I've been going through edit filter requests in an effort to clean up the area and noticed your request "Icon Group International". Is this issue still ongoing? If so, do you have any diffs that you could provide for details on what to look for? Thanks for any information. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 07:29, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Impressive turnaround

Well done. Tombomp (talk/contribs) 16:40, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I honestly don't know what you are referring to. Thanks though. --Apoc2400 (talk) 18:10, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NEWT talkpage & quick discussion turnover

Hello--

That page hasn't been touched in white awhile, but I had it watchlisted and say you post and tossed up a decent-sized summary of how some of it worked out and how it resulted in far far more sour feelings and time wasted than any productive learning whatsoever. It was just....... bad, for anyone following for about 2 full weeks. As in, at least as heated as a frustrating climate change or Israel article. Well have fun! It's a whole lot to read in full if you're terribly bored, but I'd say no one should ever subject him/herself to something like that. Cheers~ ♪ daTheisen (talk) 14:11, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Flag of Japan

I would like to thank you for the copy edits you have performed on this article. I greatly appreciate it. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 18:14, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ping

I have sent you an e-mail. --Tenmei (talk) 21:17, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you clarify this comment for me, please?

Said here.

On the other hand, Seregain's editing of medical articles looks problematic.

Exactly in what way were those handful of edits problematic? Seregain (talk) 18:32, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits to the medical articles appear to not be neutral, and push some kind of anti-vaccination agenda. --Apoc2400 (talk) 18:38, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Adding a tiny little section/paragraph about a piece of notable and relevant news is not pushing any kind of agenda. Do you believe the news was not notable or relevant? Seregain (talk) 05:04, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Americas Aerospace Quality Group

Hello. The article was created yesterday. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 19:45, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! --Apoc2400 (talk) 23:23, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Abuse template discussion

I can see that you are working through all the TFD discussions. You commented on the Abuse TFD Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2010_January_15#Instead_discussing_over_deletion_why_don.27t_we_improve_the_template and i responded to your comments. I thought i would need to draw your attention to this as i was not sure if you would revisit them for feedback. I have spent years studying abuse and its related psychology and feel very strongly that your opinion of the Abuse template, although sincere, needed much more depth and understanding of the subject. Looking at your subjects of interest on your user page, it doesnt look like you have any relevant specialist knowledge to facilitate this.--Penbat (talk) 22:27, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I replied again in the TFD.--Penbat (talk) 00:15, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please can you respond to my comments of 23:57, 18 January 2010 on Abuse TFD discussion

See: Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2010_January_15#Instead_discussing_over_deletion_why_don.27t_we_improve_the_template

Time is marching on and there needs to be a resolution to this.--Penbat (talk) 10:43, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ANI and Rdm2376

I almost made the same mistake. Then I realized by looking at Coffee's contrib list that he had moved it to a sub-page. That's common practice when a thread gets so long it starts to dominate the ANI page and does not appear to have a quick solution. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:00, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

I am passing on your list to several wikiprojects.

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar may be awarded to especially tireless Wikipedians who contribute an especially large body of work without sacrificing quality. This barnstar is awarded to Apoc2400, for his incredible work in creating: User:Apoc2400/Deletion list. Wow! Fabulous job. I hope you stick around, because wikipedia needs more editors like you. Your great! Ikip 00:47, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please see User talk:Ikip. Ikip 01:06, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation

I note that you have had a few articles be put up for deletion, such as Anabuki Kosan. I am very, very impressed by your work. You would be a valuable addition to our group:

WikiProject Article Rescue Squadron Hello, Apoc2400. You have been invited to join the Article Rescue Squadron, a collaborative effort to rescue articles from deletion if they can be improved through regular editing. For more information, please visit the project page, where you can >> join << and help rescue articles tagged for deletion and rescue. Ikip 00:49, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thierry Desmarest

Done - source away ! - Peripitus (Talk) 11:53, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Thierry Desmarest lives too Peripitus (Talk) 12:00, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And the rest, though on two I've removed either personal or negative statements. Source away again - Peripitus (Talk) 20:16, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If all user's creating new articles took the sourcing care you are with these articles, we would not have an issue. Thank you - Peripitus (Talk) 03:05, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia citation tool for Google Books

I think I'm going to use that one occasionally. :) To simplify usage, I made a quick bookmarklet:

javascript:void(location.href='http://reftag.appspot.com/gb.py?book_url='+escape(location.href))

Make a new bookmark using the above as address, and a single click will take you to from Google Books to RefTag from now on. ;) If requested, I think I can enable arbitrary selections as argument. Paradoctor (talk) 02:23, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! That is very useful. Now let me figure out how to provide this conveniently to users. --Apoc2400 (talk) 11:11, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Just point them at http://paradoctor.webs.com/ Paradoctor (talk) 14:01, 26 January 2010 (UTC)~~[reply]

~~Updated bookmarklet available at http://www.marklets.com/Bookmarklets/RefTag_fixed.aspx (WebCite 26 January 2010)~~

Updated bookmarklet available at http://www.marklets.com/Bookmarklets/RefTag.aspx Paradoctor (talk) 23:42, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This version tries to get the URL from highlighted text before using the current URL. Paradoctor (talk) 22:23, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Great! I put in a small link. Do you know if it works in all browsers? --Apoc2400 (talk) 23:11, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The applet contains a switch using three different access methods for text selection. This should cover pretty much all bases. I can confirm Firefox v3.5.7 and Internet Explorer 7.0.6001.18000 (both 32 and 64 bit), OS is Vista Ultimate 64 bit SP1 German. Paradoctor (talk) 23:50, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First production use here, thank you. :) Paradoctor (talk) 23:39, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nice! I have been away from Wikipedia for a couple of days. --Apoc2400 (talk) 13:26, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestions and feature requests

utilize WP template

in case "plain wikicode (experimental)" utilize { {google books} } instead of url. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.86.219.238 (talk) 14:56, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Query string

I note that the query string is retained in full, which is usually not useful. I suggest either a checkbox, or to trim the query string by default to book id and page number.

Yes, I also usually only keep the book idea and page number. Since we both think so, I will change it. Do you think a checkbox is important? It would make the interface even more cluttered. --Apoc2400 (talk) 13:26, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can live without the checkbox just fine. Paradoctor (talk) 14:15, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done --Apoc2400 (talk) 14:29, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Page number

When I manually add a page number, it doesn't get inserted into the template.

Fixed Thanks. Paradoctor (talk) 12:52, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't actually changed anything I think. If you find the bug again, could you tell me which book and what you entered in the page number field? --Apoc2400 (talk) 13:26, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I think I hit the wrong button, probably Make preview instead of Make citation. Paradoctor (talk) 14:21, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Accessdate

Should be preloaded with current date, I don't see many instances where this is not appropriate.

Sure. I personally find access date rather useless for Google Books links, but it doesn't hurt either. --Apoc2400 (talk) 13:26, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done --Apoc2400 (talk) 14:29, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Author

I did not at first realize that you can use the "or" links to switch from "author" format to "first/last" format, you could relabel the buttons to "switch to other name format". Also, I'd expect this to be a toggle rather than a one-time affair.

It should be a toggle yes, I was just lazy about that. The problem with more descriptions is that I want the fields to fit on 1024 pixels wide screens. I am thinking about removing the "Author" fields altogether, keeping only "last name" and "first name" for each author. The possible problem is that the automatic splitting of first and last name sometimes gets it wrong. Those can be fixed manually of course. --Apoc2400 (talk) 13:26, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with removing the author field. You could also dynamically switch the display. Paradoctor (talk) 14:42, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Authorlink

With two authors, only the second author displayed the link to Wikipedia. For clarity you should make two links/buttons labeled "fill authorlink" and "search on en.Wikipedia" or similar.

Which book is that for? It only shows the link if there is an article with that name. About clarity, you are right, but there is the same space problem as above. Let me see what I can do. --Apoc2400 (talk) 13:26, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, you might want to document that. Also, I just realized that authornames are sometimes ambiguous. I don't know how much of a problem that is, though. Paradoctor (talk) 14:26, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ref name

The "make" button just inserts the last name of the first author. Please change this to the last names of the first two authors and year, e. g. WardBrownlee2000. You might want to offer several options for different styles.

I will change it as you said. I am also thinking about removing the button and making it filled in by default instead. About several options, you can always type or copy anything you want. --Apoc2400 (talk) 13:26, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done --Apoc2400 (talk) 14:29, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Google link

I have learned that per WP:ELNO No. 15, citations shouldn't link to Google Books when there already is an ISBN. Personally, I have no problem with it, but I seem to be in a minority here. Paradoctor (talk) 12:58, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I replied there. --Apoc2400 (talk) 13:26, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template documentation

A link there might be useful. Paradoctor (talk) 14:40, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done --Apoc2400 (talk) 14:47, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Missing fields

Maybe you could provide a checkbox or a button to toggle empty parameters for the missing template fields, as in
{{cite book|title=SomeBook|author=SomeAuthor...}} ↔ {{cite book|title=SomeBook|author=SomeAuthor...|doi=|id=|quote=}}

Which parameters would you want there? Everything {{Cite book}} supports? --Apoc2400 (talk) 14:44, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Probably the simplest solution, deleting is quicker than typing. BTW, you fix stuff faster than I can nag. ;) Paradoctor (talk) 14:52, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm efficient when I get into it. One thing I am thinking about is to have an 'advanced' link/button that shows some more advanced fields. That way the default interface can be smaller, but all the extra options are there too. I just have to read up on JavaScript for how to do that properly. --Apoc2400 (talk) 14:56, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I added a checkbox that will add extra parameters. Is it ok that they are all added at the end? Is there any parameter you miss? --Apoc2400 (talk) 15:06, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I also made the radio buttons and checkboxes automatically press the "Make citation" button for you. However, this erases any manual changes to the citation wikicode. Is that a problem? --Apoc2400 (talk) 15:38, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Happy as a pig in the mud. ;) Paradoctor (talk) 17:01, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edition

For this book, it doesn't pick up the edition as illustrated.Smallman12q (talk) 02:46, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It also misses the editor. Paradoctor (talk) 03:44, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Right, some data is missing from the Google data feed. In this case the editor is the same as the author, and "Edition: illustrated" seem to be there for all books that have illustrations, even if it is no other edition. --Apoc2400 (talk) 16:48, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More databases

Smallman12q suggested adding the NYTimes, LeadSongDog suggesting pulling OCLC from Google. I think that an even more valuable addition would be WorldCat. Also, is there a reason why we should not try to use multiple sources at once? (There goes your weekend: ;) Paradoctor (talk) 10:10, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Both NYTimes and WorldCat requires getting an account and password. They are free, but I am having some trouble with the process. I am working on it. By the way, do you use RefToolbar? I am also working on integrating reftag and other sources into that, so you will not have to copy the code over manually. --Apoc2400 (talk) 10:51, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nice. And yes, RefToolbar is enabled in my gadgets. Paradoctor (talk) 11:06, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is now a very basic function that takes a DOI and makes a {{cite journal}} with data from CrossRef. http://reftag.appspot.com/doiweb.py --Apoc2400 (talk) 17:39, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, first production use. The initial "S." was added to the last name rather than to the first, and the script didn't fetch the title of the paper. Paradoctor (talk) 11:51, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The data from CrossRef for this doi is that way. Sometimes the metadata there is wrong or incomplete. I did however add code that fixes the capitalization of the names if they are in all caps. --Apoc2400 (talk) 13:29, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This world is simply not perfect enough. ;) Thanks for the fix. Paradoctor (talk) 13:33, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Any chance of open source?

I'd like to build citation tools into other applications, and it'd be really good if I could see how your very useful Google Books citation tool works. Have you considered releasing it as open source so others can learn from it? Thanks. —Tom Morris (talk) 20:44, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:45, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes! It is now available at https://github.com/Apoc2400/Reftag To run it yourself you will need an account at Google App Engine, and API keys for Google Books and other data sources. --Apoc2400 (talk) 19:37, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Publication year problem

Apoc, your tool is wonderful - adding my thanks to the chorus. User:DGG pointed to a problem here tho [1] - for a book that compiled periodical entries over many years, the Gbook publication year could give a false impression wrt publication date. This clearly doesn't lend itself to an easy resolution. Could you put some sort of caveat in there - something along the lines of 'We recommend that users check the publication date, especially for books that are compilations of periodical publications'? Sincerely, Novickas (talk) 18:26, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Default behavior changes

I've been using the tool extensively, and the following would be helpful:

use parameter page instead of pages, and at the same time, don't assume users will add more pages, so don't follow the number with -. In other words: "|page=983" instead of "|pages=983–" should be the default
often, citations to the same source are used in text, but the tool generates only one name per text. Add the page number to the cite name, so <ref name="Strauss1993-983"> instead of just <ref name="Strauss1993">
A more complex but useful feature would be for the tool to check if Wikipedia has article on the author and generate the |authorlink= entry
I know GBooks is bad at providing publication place, can this be gathered from another source?

--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:49, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PS is there a way that you can generate an automated interface? right now its based on javascript. I would really like to see a version that be be used by bots and other scripts that does not require javascript. All that Im asking is for an easy way to get the full citation from a url. Thanks ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 19:22, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ping after two years. Have you given any thought to my request? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:31, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Roman numerals

Thanks for the tool. If you can help it, when a url has pg=PR10 this should create parameter page=x , not 10. trespassers william (talk) 14:51, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

.com vs country domains

From where I live, it seems Google books links to domains other than .com, always result in a restricted page, but if you change the suffix the result is usually an open one (the id is the same). I wonder what's your experience of this behavior, and whether the script can make that change. trespassers william (talk) 15:06, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Https and en-dash

Lately I have been seeing much automated edits being made to "cite book"-references: http: is changed into https: (per this RfC, while hyphens that indicate page ranges are converted into en-dashes (–). Is it possible for the citation tool to apply https and en-dashes directly? Thanks by the way for this awesome tool, making our lives so much easier. - HyperGaruda (talk) 18:57, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Errors

NY Times link returning error

Hi, love your citation generators, used them plenty. Just tried the NY Times citation generator for the first time and it's returning an 500 error that says "Error: Server Error". The URL I pasted into it is this. Agyle (talk) 08:07, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's strange. I'll take a look. Thanks! --Apoc2400 (talk) 18:48, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For some reason, the NY Times API is not returning any data for that URL. It seem to happen for more and more articles. I have changed to a better error message at least. --Apoc2400 (talk) 21:15, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect removes hyphens from ISSNs

See, for example, using this link -- the ISSN is copied into "other fields" but the hyphen is stripped. This generates an error. --Floatjon (talk) 16:59, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

		What a Brilliant Idea Barnstar
		For finding a way to make life easier. Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:42, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to say thanks for the great idea and figured I might as well say it in a graphic and pretty way. :) I don't get to write too many articles these days (too much copyvio cleanup to do), but I would have loved that tool when I was writing more and I look forward to using it when I do so next. I've done a trial run, and it's fabulous. So. Thanks. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:42, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I am glad you like it. :-) --Apoc2400 (talk) 14:04, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Harris (lobbyist)

is back - Peripitus (Talk) 20:34, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, done. --Apoc2400 (talk) 00:03, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Citation tool

Are you planning to add support for other sites? Could you for example add support for New York Times which prints author/publishing data in the metadata of their webpages? (Great tool by the way!)Smallman12q (talk) 02:08, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It would be neat, but Google Books is easier since Google provides a public data API. I guess the New York Times does not, and if I start parsing their regular website they might get suspicious that I am scraping their content. Also it would break whenever they change layout. I will see if it is possible though. --Apoc2400 (talk) 23:22, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's fairly simple to do in php given that most of their data is given in meta data so one could use the get_meta_tags and that would pretty much be it...I'll write up a sample php script. The legality though...that I don't know.Smallman12q (talk) 02:36, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever their bot policy is, the most they can legally do is block you. Plain facts are not protected by copyright. If you're seriously worried, why not ask them? Who knows, maybe they have no API because they didn't think of it? Paradoctor (talk) 08:22, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well they an have two API and also a silverlight sdk. Looking at the article search api, they do have a "url" get field and you could get all the data in a more efficient manner...but I'm only writing this as a proof of concept. So, if you're more interested, feel free to use their API (the limit is 5k queries per day)...I just wanted to prove that it could be done...Smallman12q (talk) 22:42, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Look interesting, and thanks for all the details. I will definitely do something with it. --Apoc2400 (talk) 17:13, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting alternative to Dibberi's tool. Perhaps you'd consider adding the |oclc=? Consider older books as in this example which has no ISBN but does have an OCLC. Googlebooks usually hides it under the "Find in a library" link, though that sometimes has other index keys instead. LeadSongDog come howl 23:00, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also note that, as Google's book id numbers are presumably stable, the |accessdate= is unwanted. LeadSongDog come howl 23:09, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting about the oclc. It seems the Google Books Data API does not provide it, even though it should. I will check more. The Google Books id is the url, so I don't think it needs to be noted separately. I personally agree with you about accessdate, but many think it is important. --Apoc2400 (talk) 23:33, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I hope I haven't given that impression. My reasoning was simlpy that if you provide it, there is no sense in not having it prefilled, as the accessdate will only very rarely differ from the date the tool is used to create the citation. I have no problem with dropping accessdate. Paradoctor (talk) 08:52, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sample Script

Here is a fairly simple sample script...

<?php

/**
 * @author Smallman
 * @copyright 2010
 * @license Public Domain
 * @version 1.0.0
 */
 
$url = 'http://www.nytimes.com/';//the url


$citenewstext;//the variable where the template info will be stored
$tags = get_meta_tags($url);//get the meta tags

//build the citenewstext
$citenewstext = "{{cite news\n";
$citenewstext .= "|title= ".$tags['hdl']."\n";
$citenewstext .= "|author= ".$tags['byl']."\n";//remove the By and correct case later
$citenewstext .= "|url= ".$url."\n";
$citenewstext .= "|newspaper= The New York Times\n";
$citenewstext .= "|publisher = ".$tags['cre']."\n";
$citenewstext .= "|location =  ".$tags['geo']."\n";
$citenewstext .= "|id=  articleid".$tags['articleid']."\n";
$citenewstext .= "|date=  ".$tags['dat']."\n";
$citenewstext .= "|accessdate= ".date('d-m-Y')."\n";//you can change format
$citenewstext .= " }}";

//send it back
echo $citenewstext;

exit;

//resources
//http://www.php.net/manual/en/function.time.php
//http://php.net/manual/en/function.get-meta-tags.php
//https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Template:Cite_news

?>

Gives a sample result of ...

{{cite news |title= Paperwork Hinders Airlifts of Ill Haitian Children |author= By IAN URBINA |url= http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/09/world/americas/09airlift.html |newspaper= The New York Times |publisher = The New York Times |location = Haiti |id= articleid1247466931716 |date= February 9, 2010 |accessdate= 08-01-2010 }}

which looks like... By IAN URBINA (February 9, 2010). "Paperwork Hinders Airlifts of Ill Haitian Children". The New York Times. Haiti: The New York Times. articleid1247466931716. Retrieved 08-01-2010. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)

Let me know what you think.Smallman12q (talk) 03:24, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot. I use Python, but it's no problem. I will probably do something using the API. Just hold on a little. --Apoc2400 (talk) 17:51, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Python=D There is a related discussion at Wikipedia:VPT#Reference.2FCitation_Auto_Citation that you may interested in.Smallman12q (talk) 21:50, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Now there is a (very simple) New York Times citation maker using their data API at

http://localhost:8080/nytweb.py

It is also integrated into the experimental version of the refToolbar userscript. --Apoc2400 (talk) 13:16, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NYT@home? Cool! ;) Paradoctor (talk) 19:36, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I forgot to tell you..I made a simple NYT cite builder at http://smallin.freeiz.com/beta/cite1.php . (It's written in php). I'll be updating it next week to work on other nyt data and other cites as well. Let me know what you think.Smallman12q (talk) 23:41, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, competition! It looks good. I noticed that the NYT API returns no result for some urls, such as [2]. I have the same problem, so let me know if you figure out what is wrong. Are there any other popular news sites that provide metadata? --Apoc2400 (talk) 13:03, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there are other sites that provide metadata such as foxnews(this isn't "real" news ^.^), but for most sites, you can scrape it out in a formatted manner.

The "error" you are experiencing, it is due to internal migration issues. As for the NYT API, there is a developer forum at http://developer.nytimes.com/forum/ and you can email them for additional support. For certain sites, you should use the times newswire api. Some nyt sites are not yet supported...but I'm happy to see I'm not the only one who hopes to making citing things a lot easier.Smallman12q (talk) 22:41, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments, etc.

I just stumbled over this tool. I see what looks like a problem. I entered data for three authors named by last & first plus a couple of coauthors. There is only one "make authorlink" clicker, positioned at author3. When clicked, it makes an authorlink using the name of the final coauthor. Shouldn't there be three clickers, each using the associated author data?

I see that the tool's supported parameters are not a perfect match with the {{Citation}} or {{Cite book}} parameter lists. That's a pretty normal disconnect in my experience, and easy to deal with by editing the copied wikicode.

I see that the tool lives at http://reftag.appspot.com/, but I couldn't find the tool by browsing/searching at http://appspot.com/. (this is my first visit there)

Nice tool. It fits well with a lot of the editing I do and I'll probably be using it in future. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:13, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, and sorry for late answer. I have been away from Wikipedia for a couple of weeks. The "make authorlink" clicker only appears if there is an article with that title. Also, it uses the data originally fetched from Google Books, not what you filled in later. I should definitely do something about that function, as it is quite confusing.

Appspot.com is the domain where applications on Google App Engine are hosted. I guess it is supposed to be like blogspot.com, but for webapps instead of blogs.

I hope you find the tool useful and any feedback is appreciated. It can now also make a citation based on a DOI or a New York Times article URL, but the interface is still more simple. For ISBN, PubMed ID and some more, there is Diberri's tool. --Apoc2400 (talk) 16:41, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

award

The Added Sauce Award

I award this to Apoc2400 for their great efforts in adding sources (sauces) to BLP articles. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:58, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! --Apoc2400 (talk) 23:23, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

refToolbar on euWikipedia, thanks to you

Hi Apoc2400, I contribute on the basque (eu) Wikipedia. I've made a version of refToolbar so that is possible to use it in our Wikipedia. You can see it here: eu:Lankide:Inorbez/refToolbar.js. My only work has been to translate and move some code because I don't know JavaScript. Thanks to you and User:Mr.Z-man. It's a great tool; simple and usefull. --Inorbez (talk) 09:42, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good job on the translation. Feel free to ask me if you need to understand something about the JavaScript. You should really thank Mr.Z-man. I am taking over maintaining refToolbar, but the current version is entirely made by Mr.Z-man. --Apoc2400 (talk) 23:25, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RefTag at WP:CITE

See here. Paradoctor (talk) 07:21, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good! --Apoc2400 (talk) 23:33, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BLP sticky PROD

Hi Apoc2400!. Every attempt to rescue a Wikipedia article is a noble gesture. However, there may be occasions when, with the best will in the world, it is just not possible to accord even a minimum of notability to an article or stub, or find a proper source for it. Most regrettably, even the most dedicated inclusionists will have to concede that the article may have to go if the creator or major contributors cannot justify their work.
For new and recent unsourced BLPs, some users are now working at WT:BLP PROD TPL on the development of templates that are designed to encourage contributors to source new BLPs, without scaring away the newbies who might not be aware of the rules. This template is certainly not another a licence to kill for the deletionists, in fact the very idea of it is to ensure that you are not fighting a losing battle. It would be great if you could look in at the prgogress and maybe leave a word of encouragement. The workshop page is essentially a template development taskforce, and is not a place to engage in a hefty debate on incusion/deletion policy. See you at WT:BLP PROD TPL?--Kudpung (talk) 12:59, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Usability of GeoTemplate

Comments on the usability of {{GeoTemplate}} (the page listing mapping services found by clicking on coordinates in articles) are invited, at Template talk:GeoTemplate#Usability redux. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 17:48, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Credo Reference

Minutes away from each other. ;) Paradoctor (talk) 20:14, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ha ha, we both like this kind of thing! --Apoc2400 (talk) 20:40, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Boba Phat at AFD again

An AFD you participated in 6 months ago, is being done again. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Boba_Phat_(2nd_nomination) Dream Focus 08:22, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Google Books script

Hey there. I just saw your RefTag, great script! Just to let you know: about a year ago I wrote a similar script (well, with a similar intention) for Firefox (under Greasemonkey) here, and AshStyles has written one here. Mine is quite poorly written, since it uses alert() tags and stuff like that, but it works for me... the other script is better written. I just scrape information off the webpage! What is the Google API? Is it reliable? Shreevatsa (talk) 01:21, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Motion Mountain

The article Motion Mountain has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

no evidence at all of notability.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:38, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for deletion nomination of Motion Mountain

I have nominated Motion Mountain, an article that you created, for deletion. The anonymous user on whose behalf I have completed the nomination does not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Motion Mountain. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Pgallert (talk) 17:23, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are now a Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 18:32, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Africa '70Hallo! I'm writing in name of Africa '70 ONG. We saw you create a page about our association, something we would do actually. May I ask you why did you create it and when? Did you collaborate with Africa '70 in the past or did you read about association in books indicated in the page? Could we collaborate to write more about association in the page you created? Thank you !! Greetings ! Simro70 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Simro70 (talk • contribs) 14:44, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]autofill functionI was referred here with this problem, hope you can help or let me know who might. This is duplicated from Mr Z-man's talk:I'll give you the background: I do a bit of work at Wikisource, Commons, and here. The usual practice at source is to obtain a djvu file from archive.org, upload that Commons, create a page in the Index namespace at wikisource, then make a transcription of the page scans in the Page namespace to serve the presentation of the work in that main namespace. There is an overview of the wikisource namespaces at s:Help:Namespace. This involves a lot of copying and fiddling with the bibliographic details at each of these steps. Here is a example: archive.org to commons to ws Index to ws main. The title, volume, publisher and so on are given at archive.org, but need to be manually copy pasted at each step. If I cite this document here, then I need to do that again in a citation template. However, if I was citing a google book or another source, I could make use of the autofill function. Would it be possible to use a script to 'autofill' the commons information template, ws Index form, ws header template and, eventually, a cite journal template here by using a single identifier, such as a url, of a (sub-paged) article like s:Folk-Lore. Volume 4/The Folk? cygnis insignis 08:25, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]The Google books autofill was actually done by User:Apoc2400. It would probably be possible to make such a script, but I personally don't have the time to do that right now. Mr.Z-man 15:42, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]Google book refhttp://reftag.appspot.com/ =Genius invention. I just thought of it and have proposed they introduce this into the editing system for everybody and then somebody told me you had had the idea and had the tech skills to invent it. If you make a proposal I will back you strongly to try to get the wiki folk built this technology into wikipedia so anybody can use it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:59, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]I think this should be incorproated into our regular toolbox! --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:57, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]User talk:DGG#Automatic google book referencingand it has your name on it.Automatic google book referencing.Cheers, Jack Merridew 07:19, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]I'm just dropping you a note to say that I added your amazingly useful tool to WP:Citation tools to try and let more people know about it. SmartSE (talk) 16:52, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]Thank you. I am glad it comes to use! --Apoc2400 (talk) 20:52, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]RefTools, metadataHey Apoc, I commented at Village Pump Proposals asking about whether reftools was ready for prime-time, in the hard-coded sense. I had two questions related to its implementation.One, it stopped working for me, due to a .js conflict. When I turned off Prove-It of all things, reftools started working again. Do you know of any reason they would conflict? Two, what would it take for RefTools to automatically query reference metadata and try and auto-populate the fields. If it could do this, its efficiency would triple.Thanks again for your work on the Gadget! Ocaasi (talk) 11:08, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]refToolbarPlus and wikEd compatibilityHello. You have a new message at Wikipedia_talk:RefToolbar_1.0#wikEd_compatibility's talk page.Is Reftag down?Greetings, whatever address I put into the bar, I get "No information available for this URL." I'm using it just the same as I have for the last few weeks, so I'm not doing anything different from what worked before. Is the app down? Amazing tool, by the way; it hurts now to be without it for the day! MatthewVanitas (talk) 00:36, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]Hyphenated ISBNsThe citation tool for Google Books is wonderful. Wish I had known about it before today. After checking it out I saw that it does not hyphenate ISBNs, which is preferred in citations. I thought maybe it would be an easy addition to the tool since such hyphenation follows exact rules a program can follow. Alternatively, the tool could maybe run its inquiry past the library of Congress' tool here which is what I use to easily get the proper hypehenation.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:29, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]Implemented now. It turned out the hyphenation rules are quite complicated, and the Library of Congress' tool can not hyphenate ISBNs from many countries. --Apoc2400 (talk) 20:17, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply] But you went the extra mile and made it work for all locations, huh? Very cool. Thanks for following-up. One of these days we're going to reach a point where we can combine all the citation tools and peer reviewer scripts and citation bot programs together into one super swiss army knife Wikipedia tool.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:02, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply] Well, yes. Then I finally found the Python library that could have done it all for me... --Apoc2400 (talk) 20:37, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]Wikipedia citation tool for Google Books: publication dateFirst of all thanks for this great tool which has been very useful in creating references. I noticed that the tool sometimes creates exact publication dates (including day and month) even though I cannot find them on the google books page. For instance for this book it creates a publication date of "2 November 2007" even though google books only says 2007 as far as I can see. I was wondering where the month/day information comes from. bamse (talk) 12:32, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]Hello. It gets the information from the Google Books API, which sometimes gives a more exact date that the Google Books website. I do not know why. --Apoc2400 (talk) 19:05, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]Thanks for the explanation. bamse (talk) 20:38, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]Related to this, I noticed the following bug: for this book, the publication date is initially given as "1 September 2009", but changes to "August 32, 2009" when selecting "md, y" type of formatting ("2009-08-32" for "y-m-d"). bamse (talk) 12:39, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]That's quite strange. I will check it up. --Apoc2400 (talk) 19:05, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]OK. It is not unique to the book linked above, but I had the same problem with several books, where the date always changed to "day=32". bamse (talk) 20:38, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]I think I found it now. It was an error in time zone handling. I fixed it, hopefully it doesn't break other dates. --Apoc2400 (talk) 21:23, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]May I suggest that the tool could be productively extended to garner data from the corresponding OCLC entry? Usually a "Find in a library" link on the google page goes to something like this. Data there can populate additional fields that googlebooks may not have filled in. In the example case, it could have provided the series title. Simply populating |oclc=245953059 would be a helpful step, as it would open the door to having user:citation bot follow up, even in the absence of an ISBN. LeadSongDog come howl! 14:02, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]In which field does one add the explanations, great work.!!!!Yogesh Khandke (talk) 20:26, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply] I am not really following. What explanations do you mean? --Apoc2400 (talk) 21:24, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]A barnstar for you!The Technical Barnstar For open sourcing Reftag, one of Wikipedia's most useful citation creation tools. —Tom Morris (talk) 18:54, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]Thank you for the tool and sharing it, may I suggest you announce it at WP:VPT? --64.134.187.116 (talk) 19:15, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]+1 to Tom's thanks. I've bookmarked this for future use. :) Steven Walling • talk 19:53, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]Survey for new page patrollersNew page patrol – Survey Invitation Hello Apoc2400! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you. If this invitation also appears on other accounts you may have, please complete the survey once only. If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it. Please click HERE to take part. Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback. You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP SurveyDelivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of Wiki Media Foundation at 11:12, 25 October 2011 (UTC).[reply]Wikipedia:WikiProject Dispute ResolutionYou may be interested in this. Peter jackson (talk) 11:32, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]A barnstar for you!The Technical Barnstar I, SarahStierch, present you, Apoc2400, with this barnstar as a thank you for your Google books Wikipedia citation tool. I use it on almost every article! Thanks for developing it and thanks for your contributions to Wikimedia! SarahStierch (talk) 20:31, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]Wikipedia citation tool for Google BooksI have just looked "{T} Wikipedia citation tool for Google Books" after becoming aware of it by an entry on another user's talk page. Playing around with one of the entries I have been editing today, it seems to be a useful tool. However an improvement I would find most useful is that if there is a page number in the URL that is an option to place the url into the page parameter instead of filling in the URL parameter. eg: http://books.google.com/books?id=RGqhKmylB4QC&pg=PA31&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false passed through your magical code produces:<ref name="Klímová-Alexander2005">{{cite book|author=Ilona Klímová-Alexander|title=The Romani voice in world politics: the United Nations and non-state actors|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=RGqhKmylB4QC&pg=PA31|accessdate=26 February 2012|year=2005|publisher=Ashgate Publishing, Ltd.|isbn=978-0-7546-4173-5|pages=31–}}</ref>As an aside why the "pages=31-" and not page=31? What I would like is:<ref name="Klímová-Alexander2005">{{cite book|author=Ilona Klímová-Alexander|title=The Romani voice in world politics: the United Nations and non-state actors|accessdate=26 February 2012|year=2005|publisher=Ashgate Publishing, Ltd.|isbn=978-0-7546-4173-5|page=[http://books.google.com/books?id=RGqhKmylB4QC&pg=PA31 31]}}</ref>which producesIlona Klímová-Alexander (2005). The Romani voice in world politics: the United Nations and non-state actors. Ashgate Publishing, Ltd. p. 31. ISBN 978-0-7546-4173-5. {{cite book}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help)Also a less important possible option is to drop the <ref name="Klímová-Alexander2005"></ref> as I usually use short citations so the Google Books entry goes into the general References section, and I can not be the only one who does this. Whether or not you make further improvements, thanks for tool and I will be using it. -- PBS (talk) 00:07, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply] Hi I'm having trouble with this today, it says site is experiencing difficulties. Its so invaluable as a tool I've almost come to take it for granted.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:58, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]It must have been some temporary server problem. --Apoc2400 (talk) 16:46, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]Your $0.02Any chance you could take a look at my note here: Wikipedia_talk:HighBeam#Reference_tool.3F ? Thanks SmartSE (talk) 22:24, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]Invitation to events in June and July: bot, script, template, and Gadget makers wantedI invite you to the yearly Berlin hackathon, 1-3 June. Registration is now open. If you need financial assistance or help with visa or hotel, then please register by May 1st and mention it in the registration form. This is the premier event for the MediaWiki and Wikimedia technical community. We'll be hacking, designing, teaching, and socialising, primarily talking about ResourceLoader and Gadgets (extending functionality with JavaScript), the switch to Lua for templates, Wikidata, and Wikimedia Labs. We want to bring 100-150 people together, including lots of people who have not attended such events before. User scripts, gadgets, API use, Toolserver, Wikimedia Labs, mobile, structured data, templates -- if you are into any of these things, we want you to come! I also thought you might want to know about other upcoming events where you can learn more about MediaWiki customization and development, how to best use the web API for bots, and various upcoming features and changes. We'd love to have power users, bot maintainers and writers, and template makers at these events so we can all learn from each other and chat about what needs doing. Check out the the developers' days preceding Wikimania in July in Washington, DC and our other events. Best wishes! - Sumana Harihareswara, Wikimedia Foundation's Volunteer Development Coordinator. Please reply on my talk page, here or at mediawiki.org. Sumana Harihareswara, Wikimedia Foundation Volunteer Development Coordinator 01:59, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]Orphaned non-free image File:SK-logo.png⚠

Thanks for uploading File:SK-logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:51, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]Go ahead and delete. It has been replaced by an other image. --Apoc2400 (talk) 18:41, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]Credo Reference Update & Survey (your opinion requested)Credo Reference, who generously donated 400 free Credo 250 research accounts to Wikipedia editors over the past two years, has offered to expand the program to include 100 additional reference resources. Credo wants Wikipedia editors to select which resources they want most. So, we put together a quick survey to do that:Link to Survey (should take between 5-10 minutes): http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/N8FQ6MMIt also asks some basic questions about what you like about the Credo program and what you might want to improve. At this time only the initial 400 editors have accounts, but even if you do not have an account, you still might want to weigh in on which resources would be most valuable for the community (for example, through WikiProject Resource Exchange). Also, if you have an account but no longer want to use it, please leave me a note so another editor can take your spot. If you have any other questions or comments, drop by my talk page or email me at wikiocaasi@yahoo.com. Cheers! Ocaasi^{t | c} 17:07, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]ToolsHi.Thnks for creating this tool.is there any tool for news related stuffs.Thank You -25 CENTS VICTORIOUS^☣ 16:12, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]User:Apoc2400/Sandbox2Hi. I disabled the {{R from shortcut}} template at User:Apoc2400/Sandbox2 as the template was causing your user subpage to inappropriately show up in Category:Redirects from shortcuts. I hope you don't mind. --MZMcBride (talk) 19:49, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]Thanks for the citation tool for Google BooksI've been using this a bit recently, and just wanted to thank you for providing such a time-saver! Cheers. -- Trevj (talk) 09:04, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]Just noticed that it struggles with square brackets: try http://books.google.com/books?id=XvENAAAAQAAJ. -- Trevj (talk) 14:23, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply] Should be fixed now. --Apoc2400 (talk) 17:00, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]Multi-languageHi, my congratulations for your Wikipedia citation tool for Google Books. It's very very usefull to me for easy referenciate WP contributions. I usually work in catalan WP and we have catalan version of {{cite book}} (you can see here). Obviously, we have the "cite book" redirected to this one. However, I'd like to be able to get the results from your tool with catalan version instead the english one. Could it be possible to have a solution to convert your tool in multi-language ? (for instance, selecting language with a combo or similar. If you accept make this improvement, I can give you a translate table of each parameter. Thanks for your answer !. Amadalvarez (talk) 19:39, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]ThanksI also thank you for the citation tool for Google books. Before using it, I could not employ books while editing. Now it is very easy. Thanks,--Egeymi (talk) 17:16, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply] Just another note of thanks for your citation tools (both the Google Books and NY Times ones). They work well, and simply. Thanks from a old-fart Wikipedian. JesseW, the juggling janitor 06:55, 24 April 2013 (UTC)Citation tool suggestionsI have been using the citation tool for Google Books, and find it really useful. I generally use template:sfn for citations, since I often want to independently cite more than one page. That means I almost always, pick "|last= |first=" style. Minor suggestions:Could the tool save a cookie to remember my "last= |first= " preference from one usage to another? If not, could it at least keep the setting when I load a new book, instead of reverting back to "|name=" But sometimes I change my mind and do want the "|name=" style (e.g. |name=United Nations). Could a click on the "or" field toggle between the two styles? I like y-m-d date format. Carrying that preference forward between sessions would be convenient A checkbox to add |ref=harv to the generated citation would be useful too, also remembered as a preference.This is just a wish list of very minor things. The tool is really useful as it is. Thanks, Aymatth2 (talk) 20:43, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]Would it also be possible to default to not including access dates? GBooks links are mostly digital copies / convenience versions of print sources rather than web-only sources, so these are often extraneous. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:15, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply] Some of it is done: It now saves a cookie to remember author format, date format, which template, ref=harv, etc. |ref=harv is added as a checkbox. "or" toggles back and forth between author and last+first name. --Apoc2400 (talk) 20:42, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]Citation tool that scrapes info from worldcat.org using an OCLC number?Your Google Books tool is great! Would it be possible to create another one that does an analogous task of taking a worldcat.org OCLC-numbered page like http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/22239204 and creating a ref cite? (I'm aware of the {{OCLC}} template, but that only constructs a URL from an OCLC.) Cheers! Woz2 (talk) 11:26, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]Article notability notificationHello. This message is to inform you that an article that you wrote, TechRadar, has been recently tagged with a notability notice. This means that it may not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Please note that articles which do not meet these criteria may be merged, redirected, or deleted. Please consider adding reliable, secondary sources to the article in order to establish the topic's notability. You may find the following links useful when searching for sources: Find sources: "TechRadar" – news · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images. Thank you for editing Wikipedia! VoxelBot 23:01, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]Thanks for Reftag ToolHello, I'd like to localize/translate the script but know nothing about python :( can you help on how to install the script on my own web server?! Dianakc (talk) 18:49, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]hey! i also want to thank for the tool! It is really great :-) I use it every day. Also it would be even greater (=unbelievable great) if you could include a german-localization to your tool. I imagine it wouldn't be that hard to program as it only needs some replacements: Instead of the template-name cite book it has to be Literatur for de-WP. title -> Titel, author -> Autor, page/s -> Seiten, access -> Zugriff, publisher -> Verlag, year -> Jahr, url -> Online This would be awsome :D--Svebert (talk) 14:50, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]Cairo FiresYou plan to write Cairo Fires. Maybe a redirect to Cairo Fire suffices? ;) Paradoctor (talk) 09:07, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]Absolutely! I had that on the list for a long time. --Apoc2400 (talk) 19:46, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]Ref HarvCould you add a "Ref=Harv" option ion Google book citation tool? We don't need page number, access date, ref name,, ref tags, but need a ref=harv parameter. Currently we have to do manually. In addition, an Sfn code generator will be helpful too. I have a "regulalry needed" code bank: User:Titodutta/Swami Vivekananda Harvnb, Please add talkback in my talk page.Tito☸Dutta 16:37, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]Good idea! It was quite easy to add, so it's already available. It does not save your setting yet, so you have to click it each time. I'm looking into that. --Apoc2400 (talk) 18:33, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply] Thank you for starting to make changes. Example Check ref-harv, now page number, accessdate not required, I think, author name in last first format will be better, I think. --Tito☸Dutta 21:32, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply] Right, I suppose page numbers do not make sense for a Harvard reference. I think I will skip the access date by default, per Nikkimaria's suggestion above. I made it remember the author name format in a cookie. --Apoc2400 (talk) 20:36, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply] We don't need ref name also, but, it is much much better now. A {{Sfn|last|year|p=N}} or {{Harv|last|year|p=N}} could be very helpful, see the sixth column of Wikipedia:WikiProject Swami Vivekananda/Harvnb. @Nvvchar, Crisco 1492, and Dr. Blofeld: may provide better feedback. --Tito☸Dutta A new version is up. See how you like it. --Apoc2400 (talk) 20:43, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]Thanks...for the new version of the citation tool for Google books. That has all the enhancements I could ask for. Great! Aymatth2 (talk) 13:29, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]The Wikipedia Library SurveyAs a subscriber to one of The Wikipedia Library's programs, we'd like to hear your thoughts about future donations and project activities in this brief survey. Thanks and cheers, Ocaasi^{t | c} 15:21, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]A barnstar for you!The Food and Drink Barnstar Thanks for creating the new Gyoza no Ohsho article, and for your work to expand the encyclopedia. Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:13, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]An RfC that you may be interested in...As one of the previous contributors to {{Infobox film}} or as one of the commenters on it's talk page, I would like to inform you that there has been a RfC started on the talk page as to implementation of previously deprecated parameters. Your comments and thoughts on the matter would be welcomed. Happy editing!This message was sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 18:26, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]DOI referencing toolCould you take a moment to drop me a quick noet about this tool. I would like to be able to use all of them and just found the New York times tool and that and the Google books tool is very straight forward and I use the Google Books tool a lot. So, thanks big time for that, but I would like to understand where to get the information to place into the window and what sources this works for.--Mark Miller (talk) 08:37, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]Am I doing something wrong?The following link does not seem to work with the tool: http://www.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/c/cuban_missile_crisis/index.html Advice? Thx in advance Learner001 (talk) 15:19, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]Suggestion 2: Google Book OCRI provided a suggestion at #User_talk:Apoc2400#Ref_Harv. Thanks for implementing that. It was very helpful. Very recently I used an OCR tool to read some images from Google Books. I believe you know it, still. . . we can not copy paste from Google Books, so many of us manually type shot quotes, excerpts from Google Books which we use under fair use. There is a process of taking a screenshot of the portion of the Google Book using print screen, snipping tool or browser extension and have it converted to text using OCR tool. It is a much better process, in manual typing there are lots of chances of typos. Now could you create an OCR tool for Wikipedia, specially for Google Books? You may add limitation, more than one page will not be converted etc. Possible? Tito☸Dutta 17:42, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]Orphaned non-free image File:Polaris Project Logo.png⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Polaris Project Logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 22:22, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]reftag.appspot.comHi. I use http://reftag.appspot.com quite a bit; it saves me a lot of manual work. Thank you for making it available. I saw the invitation there to send feedback to you here; so, in order of priority to me ...(apparent bug) The Page number(s): field translates square brackets into [ and ], causing pages entered as e.g., [http://books.google.com.ph/books?id=g3QsamB5onwC&pgg=PA1 1] to be placed into the cite as pages=[http://books.google.com.ph/books?id=g3QsamB5onwC&pgg=PA1 1]. I use google deep links a lot, and need to clean this up manually a lot. (featurization) It would be nice if a single page number (i.e., a page number consisting of either only alphanumerics or ending in a blank followed by a string of alphanumerics followed by a ] char) be introduced in the cite as |page= rather than as |pages=, obviating the need for manual cleanup. (featurization) An additional field enabling the {{{chapterurl}}} parameter to be supplied would be useful.I hope some of this is useful. Cheers. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 20:56, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]Nucear fission reactorA tag has been placed on Nucear fission reactor, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a redirect from an implausible typo, or other unlikely search term. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. If you believe that there is a reason to keep the redirect, you can request that administrators wait a while before deleting it. To do this, affix the template {{hangon}} to the page and state your intention on the article's talk page. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. 217.21.43.22 (talk) 09:12, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]Nucear fission reactorsA tag has been placed on Nucear fission reactors, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a redirect from an implausible typo, or other unlikely search term. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. If you believe that there is a reason to keep the redirect, you can request that administrators wait a while before deleting it. To do this, affix the template {{hangon}} to the page and state your intention on the article's talk page. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. 217.21.43.22 (talk) 15:33, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]Proposed deletion of Women to the TopThe article Women to the Top has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:Tagged for notability since 2011. All links in the references section are either dead (including its own website), barely mention this project, or are not independent. Does not meet WP:GNG.While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons. You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page. Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Randykitty (talk) 13:06, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]"New York Times Wikipedia reference generator" is deadhi... your "New York Times Wikipedia reference generator" hasn't functioned all day, even with the example given.Layzeeboi (talk) 07:08, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]DOI ref generatorHi, thanks for your great tool. I discovered that this doi (10.1037/0022-3514.61.2.195) breaks your program. Have a nice day Ihaveacatonmydesk (talk) 23:34, 4 November 2014 (UTC) edit: same for http://reftag.appspot.com/doiweb.py?doi=10.1177%2F0093650209333030 [3] Ihaveacatonmydesk (talk) 17:56, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]Since I'm here, I was thinking of some useful features: a tick to deselect ISSN: it's useful info but quite redundant if you already have the doi. the possibility to truncate first names (eg, J. K.) to conform to the page WP:CITEVAR choices if the last character of the title is a period, delete it. {{cite journal}} adds it in any case after the quotes. thanks again! Ihaveacatonmydesk (talk) 17:15, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]Category:Articles for any kind of deletionCategory:Articles for any kind of deletion, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Ivanvector (talk) 17:31, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]A barnstar for you!The Technical Barnstar For the GB cite tool. I just discovered it a few days ago, and it's already saved me almost an hour of fussy back-and-forth copy-pasting. A real boon! FourViolas (talk) 01:50, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]Wikipedia citation tool for Google Books - translationHi, first of all many thanks for your wonderful tool. I'd like to give my little contribution by translating it in for the Italian template. What do you think? Is something difficult? --GLf (talk) 14:54, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]WikiProject IntertranswikiHi. In 2009 you joined up for the wikiproject Wikipedia:WikiProject Intertranswiki. The project has since ceased activity but is currently being given a kick start due to its importance and the coordination needed to translate content from other wikipedias. If you're still active and are still interested please visit the bottom of Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Intertranswiki and add a {{tick}} by your name within the next week so the project can do a recount and update. Thank you. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 05:18, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]RfC: On Software Notability.There is currently a RfC on the topic of software notability (whether consensus has changed or if the essay needs updating) at Wikipedia talk:Notability (software)#RfC: On Software Notability.. As you previously discussed on the topic I thought you might be interested. :) ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 17:49, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]Updated scriptsHi Apoc2400. I edited your monobook.js to update you to the latest version of TemplateScript. You were using a much older version called regex menu framework, so the main difference you'll see is an improved regex editor and cleaner custom scripts. I also updated deprecated functions and made your scripts HTTPS-compatible. Let me know if anything breaks, or if you'd like help migrating the scripts into your common.js. :) —Pathoschild 02:34, 09 August 2015 (UTC)File:Jätten Vist copy.JPG listed for deletionA file that you uploaded or altered, File:Jätten Vist copy.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Kelly ^hi! 05:14, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]Wikipedia citation tool for Google BooksHi Apoc2400, I have a feedback about this tool, when it converts Google links to citations it makes the url in http instead of https, see this RfC. Regards. Rupert Loup (talk) 23:09, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]NYTIs this tool not working? I never got to use it, and when I tried about 3 days ago it returned a 503 error. Best, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 13:23, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]ArbCom elections are now open!Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:53, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]Google Books Tool (Cite Magazine?)Any chance that outputting "cite magazine" could be done?Naraht (talk) 13:43, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]Deprecated parameter: coauthorsHey, just wondering if you knew that the "coauthors" parameter of the https://reftag.appspot.com page is deprecated for use on Wikipedia and produces an error when filled in automatically from a Google Books reference. Am not sure what the solution is, but wanted to make sure you were aware of the problem. That's all! I use this tool a LOT (thank you for making it available!), but had never come across this error before. Until today. KDS4444^Talk 04:00, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]How coincidental. I have been using this tool a lot over time and especially the last few days, but noticed the co-author problem yesterday and today. Count me in as hoping you would look into the issue. (If you need an example this link serves as one.)--S Philbrick(Talk) 22:44, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]I saw a note by another editor who had made a fix to relating to the co-author issue. I checked to see if the editor would offer to help make the fix for the Google books tool. The editor believes it is a relatively easy fix, and identified what’s needed in User_talk:Izno#co-authors. I notice other request for updates. Do you plan on addressing this at some time? Would it make sense to consider migrating the tool to Labs?--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:57, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]Another addition of "coauthors" related to this tool was discussed here. Jason Quinn (talk) 09:36, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]A barnstar for you!The Brilliant Idea Barnstar The Wikipedia citation tool for Google Books is wonderful! Sorry it has taken me so long to thank-you for it. S Philbrick(Talk) 22:47, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]Wikipedia citation tool for Google BooksThanks a million for Wikipedia citation tool for Google Books! I use it every day. However, the tool does not accept URLs from HathiTrust’s digital library, an excellent source which contains many books Google Books does not (such as this entire book). I thought I might ask you, would it be possible to change Wikipedia citation tool for Google Books so that I can enter URLs from HathiTrust as well?– Gilliam (talk) 06:14, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]The da Vinci Barnstar for you!The da Vinci Barnstar Awarded to Apoc2400 for contributing to the Wikipedia community the excellent and extremely useful {T} DOI Wikipedia reference generator. —Finell 21:29, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]Need update to Google book toolWas wondering if an update is need to comply with Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 127#RfC: Should we convert existing Google and Internet Archive links to HTTPS? -- Moxy (talk) 00:03, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]Appreciate your tool, but wanted to support the idea above. (It doesn't look hard, but I know I have no idea what I'm talking about.) Keep up the good work. Thanks, SchreiberBike | ⌨ 16:59, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply] I agree, the tool should be updated to use https. Also, thank you for making what is my favorite external tool for Wikipedia – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 09:33, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply] I will take a look as soon as I got the development environment set up again. Soon... --Apoc2400 (talk) 12:14, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply] Done, finally! --Apoc2400 (talk) 15:25, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]doi tool pages=only first pageDOI Wikipedia reference generator, pages=only first page Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 14:58, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]Deep appreciationI am not sure how to completely convey my deep appreciation for your doi to citation generator. I would not be exaggerating if I say I use it every single day to create references for medical articles. This tool increases my productivity to the point where I am the the medical editor with the seventh highest number of edits under both my User names:Barbara (WVS)/Bfpage. I haven't done a thorough 'count' (yet) of medical articles created during the past year but I am fairly sure that I have created more articles than the other medical editors who focus their efforts on copy edits, reverting, and checking my references! Because of your tool, the WikiEd Foundation and the University of Pittsburgh are ecstatic with my affiliation with them and the volume of medical content that has been added to the encyclopedia on Women's Health. What you've created has had a huge impact. I've been wanting to connect with you for some time about this and I am a little sheepish that I have waited this long to express my appreciation. There is no barnstar that could ever adequately convey the positive impact of your tool. Here are a few places where you can see where I have used your tool:articles created articles improved Clinical content on Rape - almost 5000 views per day. This whole article was written using your tool - Neonatal infection. It went from stub to DYK because your tool allows me to add references so rapidly that I can make the deadline required for DYK nominations. This article gets over 900 views daily. Please take some of the credit. I hope we get to meet one day. The Very Best of Regards,Barbara (WVS) (talk) 12:44, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]Hi Barbara. Thank you so much for the kind words! I am really happy to hear that the tool is useful. I have not updated it for a while, but I will try to fix some bugs soon. --Apoc2400 (talk) 14:19, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply] I have not noticed any bugs but if the tool were able to insert the PMID that is associated with Pub Med's listings of each journal article then I would't have to go in and add it myself. It would look something like this: ...|doi=10.33459/jpre|PMID=23465|}}. Bots and other editors come by and fix the PMID ommisions and complain about it...but then they wouldn't have anything to do. Barbara (WVS) (talk) 10:32, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]nyt ref generatorChokes on this. Tks Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 15:53, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]WorldCat?Hi, I just wanted to say that I love your Reftag Tool and use it all the time, and wanted to know if it were possible to do one for WorldCat. One of the great things about WorldCat is that it provides transliterations for foreign-language (foreign-script) books like this one. I'd love to have a tool that could include |script-title= and |language= automatically. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 21:08, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]Reftag not working for plain wikicodeEntering e.g., https://books.google.com.ph/books?id=fAuBedlSboIC in the URL field, selecting "plain wikicide", and clicking "Make citation" produces a result saying, "<ref>Because no values have been specified for the prop parameter, a legacy format has been used for the output. This format is deprecated, and in the future, a default value will be set for the prop parameter, causing the newformat to always be used.</ref>" Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:03, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]Fixed now! Try it. --Apoc2400 (talk) 15:25, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]https and Wikipedia citation tool for Google BooksHello! I would like to bring up an issue with the Wikipedia citation tool for Google Books (http://reftag.appspot.com/). When pasting a secure url from Google books (beginning with https://books.google.com...), the complete reference tag output invariably omits the "s", leading to an unsecured url (http://books.google.com...). Could you tweak the tool to output https? It is not the biggest tissue, as User:Bender the Bot is currently combing through Wikipedia and converting http→https , but since there appears to be a project-wide move to go to HTTP secure, it would save a manual step or two and increase security. Thanks for looking into this, --Animalparty! (talk) 20:33, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]Have to agree. And it should be a minor fix. --bender235 (talk) 20:47, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]Done, finally! --Apoc2400 (talk) 15:24, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]Wikipedia citation tool for DOI not workingHi, I have been using Wikipedia citation tool for DOI for a long time. It's a great tool, but now it returns server error message. Thanks for looking into this,夜南行 (talk) 19:11, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply] Thanks for replying to my email earlier today. Please remember to get this fixed.--79.74.23.71 (talk) 22:08, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]Fixed now! --Apoc2400 (talk) 22:32, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]Wikipedia citation tool for DOI feature requestIt would be really nice if this could accept DOIs with the http(s) prefix as well, eg. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jempfin.2005.06.001 It's trivial to do with a regexp. I'll write a patch myself if the source is available. Sondra.kinsey (talk) 18:52, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]Thanks, and Google Books citation tool, and issn number parameterThanks for the great tool, Wikipedia citation tool for Google Books! I've been using it for a few months, and today had another editor revise the parameter used for issn numbers, here. Maybe it makes no difference, but I thought you might like the feedback, and I definitely wanted an excuse to thank you for and excellent time-saver! Cheers.— Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 15:53, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Apoc2400. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016. 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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. Mdann52 (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]Orphaned non-free image File:Daiwa House Logo.png⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Daiwa House Logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:45, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]Fine it delete it. It's been replaced with an SVG on Commons. --Apoc2400 (talk) 10:52, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]Bug in DOI Wikipedia reference generator?hi, and thanks for your DOI Wikipedia reference generator! I note that it fails to provide the journal name for this doi = 10.1109/PVSC.2014.6925271. I guess it should be Photovoltaic Specialist Conference (PVSC), 2014 IEEE 40th Thanks. Layzeeboi (talk) 01:36, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]Orphaned non-free image File:Idemitsu Kosan Japanese Logo.png⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Idemitsu Kosan Japanese Logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:37, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]question about DOI Wikipedia reference generatorhi. From this doi=10.1117/12.351361, your tool generates a different author list from what one sees on the publisher web site. thanks Layzeeboi (talk) 07:07, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]I love reftagI love reftag, thanks for making it! According to Template:Citation, the |coauthors= param is deprecated. Thanks again for the tool. Mathglot (talk) 07:18, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]reftoolbarplus is brokenHi, this userscript of yours is a bit broken. I would suggest either updating it significantly and make sure that it uses up to date coding standards and doesn't clash with the default reftoolbar, or otherwise just blanking it, so that users of it at least don't receive JS errors. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 20:43, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]I have blanked the page for now, since it was breaking for several people, and since the gadget reftoolbar is on by default anyway, i suspect that the impact for most will be minimal. You can unblank if you want of course. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 21:21, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]reftag running slowI thought I should mention that your excellent tool http://reftag.appspot.com/ is running slow at the moment, for me. A couple of minutes to generate the citation template. One other point to bring up while I'm here. The treatment of coauthors is now obsolete, and there can be red ink on the displayed refs. As in "Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested)", occurring twice on Jerzy Słupecki. Charles Matthews (talk) 05:01, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]File:QS mark.jpg listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:QS mark.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 08:31, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!The Original Barnstar I ran across your citation tool for Google Books. It worked great for me. Excellent work, Apoc! Strafpeloton2 (talk) 02:25, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]Google Books reftag full datesHey, not sure if it's always been this way, but the tool pulls the full publication date (with month and day) rather than just the year. I don't think I've had a single instance in hundreds of times using the tool where it was appropriate to keep the full date, so I've been culling the month & day manually. Would it make sense to have the tool only pull the year into the respective field? czar 06:15, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Apoc2400. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]Orphaned non-free image File:Hong Kong Aids Foundation logo.png⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Hong Kong Aids Foundation logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:22, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]RefTag tool generating incorrect page rangesPlease see this discussion, specifically about inaccurate page ranges, like "p. 99–", that are being generated by the RefTag tool. Thanks. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:54, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]Dates of Print/Later Online PublicationsWhile updating a citation, I noticed an issue with DOI 10.2307/971600 in your RefTag tool - The article was originally published in 1995 in its journal (and your tool correctly picks up the journal, volume, issue, and page numbers), and later published online in 2017. The RefTag tool is erroneously picking up that later online publication year rather than the original print publication year. Verbatim9 (talk) 20:39, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply] Legion Etrangere — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.189.219.15 (talk) 07:00, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]Reftag and WikidataHello, hope this message will find you well. We talked a couple of times a couple of years ago. About your Reftag tool, it collects Metadata from Google Books, I was just wondering if anyhow it can be used on Wikidata. --Titodutta (talk) 19:26, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]Orphaned non-free image File:Sekisui House Logo.png⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Sekisui House Logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:44, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]