Jump to content

User talk:Bgwhite/Archive 24

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 20←Archive 22Archive 23Archive 24Archive 25Archive 26→Archive 30

Q re TOC left

Hi, I'm trying to understand your editsum There must be no material between TOC and headline per WP:TOC, is this what you were referring to at WP:TOC?:

If floating the TOC, it should be placed at the end of the lead section of the text, before the first section heading. Users of screen readers do not expect any text between the TOC and the first heading

The notation sidebox isn't really article text, it's just a sidebox. I used essentially the same construction in {{algebraic notation|pos=toc}}, so if this is wrong, then are all applications of that template wrong as well? (E.g. in Giuoco Piano? There are lots and lots of chess-related especially openings articles currently using it.) I don't pretend to know ins-and-outs of template coding or guidelines even when writing that pos=toc option (was unassisted when writing that code couple years ago), but it seems to work ok for WP:CHESS even after quite a bit of past discussions re alternatives, modifications, etc. The whole impetus with it was to utilize the dead space adjacent to TOC, for when the sidebox was needed/desirable upfront before the article body first section. Thanks for any guidance. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 19:21, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Ihardlythinkso, there are two things going on here:
  1. For those who use screen readers, such as the blind, any text between the TOC and the first headline is not processed. It is as if the text was never there. By removing the {{TOC left}}, they are now able to "see" the templates or text that were between the TOC and first headline.
  2. I'm winging it on what looks "good"... Do I just remove the TOC template? Do I move the TOC template down? Do I add a section heading after the TOC template?
So, I have no problem with {{TOC left}} being in the article, as long as it is in the lede section and just before the headline. Bgwhite (talk) 21:16, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
To put the sidebox adjacent to TOC as mentioned, {{algebraic notation|pos=toc}} breaks down to:
{{TOC left}}
{{break|1}}
{{algebraic notation|pos=left}}
{{clear left}}
and has been inserted, as in Giuoco Piano, nearly always before the first article section header. (Is that all wrong and unworkable for screen readers then? If so I didn't know about this earlier, and have unintentionally created a big cleanup mess [lots of chess-related articles using it]. The reason I'm wondering is because the sequence you edited is essentially the same as the expanded sequence from the template.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 21:41, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
Ihardlythinkso, very good question. I think it is wrong, but I'm not a millionaire and thus can't afford a screen reader... Graham, can you "see" the box to the right of the TOC that says, "This article uses algebraic notation to describe chess moves." in the Giuoco Piano article?
Don't worry about creating a mess. I didn't know until a few months back until Graham mentioned it. Graham put in a request to "cleanup" this problem. Bgwhite (talk) 22:05, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
Any text after the TOC is *readable* for screen reader users; they're just highly unlikely to find it because of its non-standard position in the wiki-markup (most good screen readers read pages based on the HTML). So to answer your question, yes I can read the text, but it's just in an incredibly awkward position; it would be much better if it was moved above the TOC. As an aside, you can download a fully functioning demo version of JAWS and there are screen reader emulators like Fangs, but it's probably still best to ask me first, as learning to use a screen reader well takes practice. Graham87 04:01, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Does anyone know of an existing template designed to kick out a hidden message specifically (only) for blind readers? (I know the alt= exists like that for file/image descriptions, but that is only a parm, I'm thinking of a template purely for issuing message text to/for blind users. [I can't seem to find anything after much searching; I'm a little surprised it wouldn't yet exist, am I missing it?]) Sincere, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 06:29, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 1 February

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:27, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

  • Logical error. When a bot speaks in "first person", it can not be "automatically detected". The first person or subject must be inactive to have a task done automatically (e.g. it was done automatically by a bot). Tito☸Dutta 11:33, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

AFD process question

I want to ask a theoretical question.
For example in any AFD discussion, nominator withdraws his AFD nomination, is it okay to close the nomination as withdrawn? Can others continue an AFD discussion even if nominator withdraws it? How much important a nominator's withdrawal is in an AFD debate? Tito☸Dutta 14:59, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Dutta Depends. If the nominator withdraws and there have been no "delete" votes, then anybody, including the nominator can close the discussion. If there have been delete votes, then it should be treated as more of a regular discussion. If the vast majority are for keep, then closing it sooner than later would be fine. If the delete vs keep votes are close, then just let it play out. Bgwhite (talk) 19:23, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Tech News: 2014-06

Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please inform other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.

Recent software changes

  • The latest version of MediaWiki (1.23wmf12) was added to test wikis and MediaWiki.org on January 30. It will be added to non-Wikipedia wikis on February 4, and all Wikipedia wikis on February 6 (calendar).
  • Global AbuseFilter rules are now active on all small wikis. [1] [2]
  • The buttons used in pages like log-in, account creation and search are now using the same colors and styles. [3] [4]
  • You can now link to diffs using [[Special:Diff/12345]] and similar links. [5]
  • There is no longer an option to hide tables of contents on all pages. [6]
  • Searching in the File: namespace on Wikimedia Commons is now faster, after a bug was fixed on January 29. [7]
  • All Wikimedia wikis now have high-resolution favicons. [8]

VisualEditor news

  • You can now see a list of keyboard shortcuts by pressing Ctrl+/ inside VisualEditor. [9]

Future software changes

Tech news prepared by tech ambassadors and posted by MediaWiki message delivery • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

08:30, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Colin Griffin

Though probably well-intentioned, this edit of yours was, I think, unfortunate. You reverted a string of edits that (i) removed a chunk of "information" for which a "source" was provided (a source that seems decent but simply doesn't contain the "information" added), and (ii) added miscellaneous information that's not sourced but for which sources seem easy to find. Once alerted to the matter at WP:BLP, I took a look, reverted you, and did a very little work on the (still terrible) article. -- Hoary (talk) 12:05, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Hoary, thank you for catching this. Bgwhite (talk) 22:32, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
No biggie. -- Hoary (talk) 09:47, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

One Deep Breath

Hi, thanks for trying to fix ref link template. It is however still broken and I am unable to fix. Can you have a look again please. Thx much. ♫ Cricket02 (talk) 04:23, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Done (I hope) Bgwhite (talk) 05:02, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Unfriendly remarks

I see you have altered my use of the term india-rubber, and claimed that "typos" were "fixed". Obviously India the country is capitalised, but the capital letter is not universally used for the nineteenth century material. Of course you may have a different opinion, but it is unfriendly to refer to my choice of the spelling as a "typo" and to claim that what you have done is "fixing" something. Afterbrunel (talk) 12:32, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia rules on using semi-automated edits is that the user takes responsibility for the result. Whether or not you agree with me about india-rubber of India-rubber, it was offensive to use the terminology applied, and that is your responsibility, not the responsibility of an automated system. To comply with Wikipedia rules you must verify any proposed edit before finalising it, and take personal responsibility for it. Afterbrunel (talk) 19:50, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
You are extraordinarily over-sensitive to take a semi-automated edit summary as a personal insult. If you think "india rubber" should be an exception to the fix (and I agree that it should be), then you should take it up with AWB. [I just did that for you.] — kwami (talk) 20:12, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
Not to mention 99.9% of the editors around here would capitalize India in "India rubber" and it is used that way too (see Natural rubber). As Tito said, there are many entries that show the capitalized I. The word "typo" is a common around here and is not in the least an offensive word. There is a thing called good faith. Try showing some. Bgwhite (talk) 21:21, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
 Fixed the typo rule. GoingBatty (talk) 01:39, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

International caps

Spot on, "caps" means "senior international official appearances". GiantSnowman 18:54, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Time-space starbarn for you!

The other barnstars of this series: Vartamanani barnstar and A saga of awBgwhite

Tito☸Dutta 20:54, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Aachen and general questions regarding web references

I am not sure I agree with the majority of what you did with the Aachen article's web references. Obviously, any improvements "work =" etc. are beneficial; however the moving of the {{cite web}} template inline, doesn't necessarily follow any rule or guideline, and it does seem to create a clash of styles. Also when you utilized the harv templates it also caused a clash of styles in that the years are not parenthesized nor even included in some. I am trying to find a way to keep your changes and add more to rectify these latter issues, but am having trouble doing so without just reverting them back, and I am loathe to do that without first coming to an agreement with you over it. Let me know what you think. speednat (talk) 08:42, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

speednat, it is not a clash of styles and it is the acceptable way of doing things. Recent FA articles on the main page, Paul Henderson and Douglas MacArthur do it this way. Your current way is not in any acceptable guideline. There are no "authors" to most websites, but publishers. German Wikipedia does follow the "author" way, but not English Wikipedia. You need the reader be able to click on the "citation" and be able to find the corresponding "Reference", especially when you have that many references. Bgwhite (talk) 08:54, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
There is no "one" acceptable way, there are many ways and differing styles. In Citing Sources it states that switching between styles should be avoided along with the fact that any of the methods is acceptable. I am no longer talking about the "http://" addition as I see that as being settled, but the removal of the parentheses and years. Regardless of whether recent FA's did it one way or another, any specific article need not follow that style of other articles just to be consistent. Look at Crocodilia for example... it follows no set way and is actually a hodge-podge of styles. That isn't to say that they should all be that way. Also, the Sudirman article places the web links out of the inline portions and back in the references. My only point here is that there is no "one" correct way. I am starting to see the benefit of the sfn/harvnb templates. I am starting to ramble at this point, but I am trying to make my point without too much headache. Maybe, I will let it sit for a couple of days and go from there. The way I have been doing it IS acceptable and done on countless pages. I did not choose to do it the way I do by random chance but by looking at all the variations out there (that I saw at the time) and settling on the one that seemed the neatest, and most useful. I have also changed a couple of times as I have realized that there are better ways. speednat (talk) 09:25, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
speednat, Crocodilia does it the same way as the other two. It just has less books than the others. You scared me with Sudiman. I was on French Wikipedia where I copy/paste Sudiman. This small article popped up and I thought, Ahhh vandalism. My point with Sudirman is that is uses harvb and doesn't use author for weblinks. You can keep the web pages down in the "reference" section and use sfn/harvb like the others. "Citing Sources" refers to the reference citation style... you can follow Chicago, AMA or GSA. FA articles show how one should do it. You will see different citation styles, but when there is alot of refs, especially books and papers, they follow the same way... harvb and not authors for weblinks. Bgwhite (talk) 09:43, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
Like I've said there is no "one" way and FA's don't have to be one specific thing, as Wikipedia:Featured_article_criteria states,

consistent citations: where required by criterion 1c, consistently formatted inline citations using either footnotes (<ref>Smith 2007, p. 1.</ref>) or Harvard referencing (Smith 2007, p. 1)—see citing sources for suggestions on formatting references; for articles with footnotes, the meta:cite format is recommended. The use of citation templates is not required.

I am not trying to be arguementative really, it is just that ever since I have been on Wikipedia, I have read and been taught that there is not one specific way for almost anything. Now, granted I personally think that should change, I think it would work better if there was one specific way to do things, the problem in that rises in which way and how do you make everyone happy as there are many opinions on what is "right" speednat (talk) 16:20, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
You are already using Harvard referencing. i.e. "Kitchen, p. 35". You are already using standard cite templates. I'm not in any way telling you to change your referencing style. What you have been quoting has no relevance as I'm not talking reference style. You are not writing a paper. This is a web page. Having a reader click on the "citation" and be taken to the "reference" is not a reference style. It is a convenience for the reader. When Harvard style is used in FA articles, they ALL do this. You don't leave the website address as the author because 1) website address is not the author 2) What happens when you use multiple documents from the same site? Bgwhite (talk) 18:28, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
I have not nor will I change my mind on the fact that "At this time, there is NO set way to do referencing", now with that said there probably should be. Second, I didn't do the Kitchen ref. change. Third regardless of what I have said in the first sentence I have decided that I like the harv templates however I can't seem to get the "SFNB" to work. Your arguments for the use of the harv template are good arguments but should probably be made to the community at large in an attempt to change the guideline or rules (good luck). Finally it does state in one of the reference pages when using a web page without an author that it is acceptable to use the website or other useful piece of information. To rebut the argument of what happens with multiple documents from the same web site, answer that with what happens with multiple citations from the same author etc. And also on that point that same piece stated another option is to use the "Anon" as the author in that situation, but I don't see that just placing the link there is the best solution as that looks tacky and what the heck would they have a "cite web" template if not to use it. Before you say to place the cite web template in the reference section and the link in the inline citation section w/o using the harvnb. Again it looks tacky, most articles do not place links in the inline section because of this. That last statement may need quantifying. :) speednat (talk) 22:08, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Holiday Cheer

Holiday Cheer
Michael Q. Schmidt talkback is wishing you Season's Greetings! This message celebrates the holiday season, promotes WikiLove, and hopefully makes your day a little better. Spread the seasonal good cheer by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and aHappy New Year, whether it be someone with whom you had disagreements in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Share the good feelings. - MQS

—Preceding undated comment added 12:20, 20 December 2013‎ (UTC)

Bot's edit summary

Your bot's edit summary is broken, I edited its talk page to stop it for now, but please fix it. Werieth (talk) 21:52, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Than you Werieth. You were correct in stopping it. However, it can't be fixed... my brain selected the edit summary and my brain is just too far gone. Bgwhite (talk) 22:21, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Why did you revert my edits on Music for Millions without telling me?

You reverted my edits on the Music for Millions without notice to me. Why?

Zabadu, first off sign your posts. Second, you don't tell people when someone reverts an edit as it done automatically. Third, you are involved in an edit war. You have been warned you "may be blocked if they continue to revert without getting consensus first." Fourth, you are using links that contain illegal content. You cannot link to pages that contain copyright violations. Bgwhite (talk) 21:12, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
What links have illegal content? The only links I used were for Wiki pages. I have not reverted the page since my last revert. I initiated the "edit war" complaint as an editor keeps reverting with no explanation.Zabadu (talk) 21:36, 6 February 2014 (UTC
Zabadu, I quote from your revision:
The orchestra is shown playing several classical standards (Dvorak, Tschaikovsky, Grieg, Liszt, Herbert, Handel, Debussy, Chopin)before various military audiences. The talented Iturbi variously conducts the group as well as effortlessly plays difficult piano pieces, while Durante sings comically in two solo acts ([http://www.last.fm/music/Jimmy+Durante/_/Toscanini,+Iturbi+And+Me Toscanini, Iturbi And Me] and [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0vihJmnPqFI "Umbriago"]).[[User:Zabadu|Zabadu]] ([[User talk:Zabadu|talk]]) 19:12, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
1) Saying "he talented Iturbi variously conducts the group as well as effortlessly plays difficult piano pieces" is not encyclopedic.
2) The YouTube link shows a clip from a movie. The movie is copyrighted, thus having the link to it is a copyright problem. See WP:COPYLINK.
3) Do not sign your name inside articles, only on talk pages. Bgwhite (talk) 22:01, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
I did not write that line. All I did was link the video. I wouldn't know Dvorak from Grieg. I added the Jimmy Durante video - my bad. I did not realize they were verbotten. The clip is NOT from the movie, however. It is from another. and lastly - I've been told so many time to sign my posts that it's a reflex now. Again, my error. It helps very much to know exactly what you see is wrong. So far, Toccata Quarta has not. This person has numerous complaints for doing this, yet I"m the one who got warned. It's bothersome. But again, thanks for the explanation.Zabadu (talk) 03:05, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is "Pine Bush, New York". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! --Guy Macon (talk) 04:56, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

GA

Hello Bgwhite, I just wanna know that can I nominate an article for GA, even if I've not made at least one edit on that article? --Captain Assassin! «T ♦ C ♦ G» 07:03, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Assassin, what article is it? Bgwhite (talk) 07:05, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
I mean anyone, it's just an example. Clearly, I've seen articles which meet or nearly meet GA's requirements and I want them to be GA. So...? --Captain Assassin! «T ♦ C ♦ G» 07:09, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
It really depends. If there have been one or a few dominant editors, it is best to include them in the GA process as they wrote the stuff. The first step is to take it to WP:Peer review. After that, then you take it to GAN. It is a really good idea for you to take an article to GA. It really helps to see what is the "right" way of doing things. I did it when starting out and it was the best training one could have around here. If you have an article in mind, let me know and I can take a look at it before going to Peer review. Also, popular culture articles such as music or films stay awhile in the Peer review and GA queues. Bgwhite (talk) 07:17, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
I've articles in my sight, I'll let you know first before I get it to Peer review. Thanks for your cooperation. --Captain Assassin! «T ♦ C ♦ G» 07:28, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Apologies

I am really sorry my slippery fingers reverted one of your edits as "rollback vandal". I am really sorry. I made the intended edit immediately after, removing all the anonymous contributions for WP:NPOV to the last solid version. I apologize your edit was not vandalism and I pushed the wrong button without meaning any harm or to create any problems! Again, I'm very sorry. Ellin Beltz (talk) 20:01, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Ellin Beltz, no problem. I understand. Bgwhite (talk) 21:28, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

request

Hello Bgwhite, I am a regular user of wikipedia. I have created few number of articles which were all wikipedia standard. Let me tell you why I am typing this message. In the last few days, I am observing some articles which are deeply related to India. While observing them I found that some articles have incorrect informations one of the examples are in this article Sonalika Joshi. This incorrect informations were added by some IP users. Being an Indian I have the Knowledge about Indian based articles. I want to rollback this incorrect informations but I don't have that right. So, I request you, can you please grant me the rollback permission, I would like to contribute more for Wikipedia against any vandalism based on Indian articles. Thank you for your kindness. Yours faithfully. (The above message is written by me i.e. By a Indian, so it is possible to have grammatical errors because I am not a native English speaker. So for any further clarifications please ask me.) Rudra (talk) 19:32, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

  • Rudra, perhaps you may need to slow down. You nominated yourself for admin with only 144 edits, you were thinking to make this article The Frog and the Nightingale. I did not know what to say, it is not close to even DYK standard. You are doing some good edits, hopefully you'll continue to do so. Rollback is almost a useless tool, Twinkle is much better (they should have a "permission for Twinkle" instead). Are you using Twinkle? Believe me, Rollback will give you no extra feature. With so less edits and reverts you may not get Rollback permission, that's a different thing, but I leave that on Bgwhite. You may get enrolled in WP:CVUA, which might help you to get the tool (but don't expect it in one-two week(s))Tito☸Dutta 20:02, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
Titodutta I respect your suggesitions. But frankly talking I don't know what is Twinkle. As you suggested I would like to get the tools. And Bgwhite, please give me the permissions for twinkle as Tito mentioned. Beside this I don't know were my brain was while I am nominating myself for adminship. It is my big mistake, I know that. Thankyou. Rudra (talk) 20:23, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Rudra john cena, any help on Indian based articles is extremely welcome. I have to agree with Titodutta. There are better ways for you right now. Rollback only works on the last user who edited an article. It does come in handy if one is dealing with alot of vandalism, otherwise, the "undo" feature should be good enough. At your stage in Wikipedia, it would be better to use "undo". Undo forces one to write an edit summary whereas rollback doesn't. Get some experience in, dealing with vandalism and I'll gladly grant you rollback.
  • okay. I will work against vandalism, but how much experience is needed? @Titodutta I am working on a new article about Indian History. Do you know about our Early nationalists existed from 1885 to 1905. They are also called moderates. I am currently working on this article in AfC. After I finish it, I will work for The Frog... Nightingale. Rudra (talk) 06:45, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
  • I am afraid at the fact that you are wrong. It was the breakup of the congress into two troops Assertive and moderate. But I am not talking about this. The early nationalist means the formers of the Indian National Congress you may check the history section of the Congress formed by A. O. Hume. The first phase of the early nationalists are considered as moderate phase, Which was existed between the years that have been mentioned earlier. After the desend of the early nationalist the assertive (also known extremist) came to power merging with the early nationalists. But due to the conflict of the ideologies. They again separeted in September 1907 (Which you are talking about). And in 1919 the Gandhian era started till the Independence.

Please don't mind Titodutta but I have already worked in this project earlier in my college, so I have a little knowledge in this subject. But your suggestions are always very important, please continue mentoring me. Thank you. Rudra (talk) 16:02, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

POV changes

Hi, I'm grateful for the POV changes you made to the Julius Ashkin page. I made a couple of small re-adjustments. Maybe you won't disagree with them: (1) I mentioned the teaching award that Carnegie Mellon created in Ashkin's honor, putting it at the tail end of the section on his career at CMU. (2) I put the statement about his wife and two daughters at the end of the section that gives his parents' names.

--Delabrede (talk) 18:49, 9 February 2014 (UTC)Delabrede

POV and COI flags

Hi, I just noticed it was you who added the COI and POV tags to the Julius Ashkin article. Adding to what you've already done, I have revised the article to remove text that seemed to me might suggest a personal connection with the subject or partiality towards him. -- --Delabrede (talk) 18:49, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

The article is much, much better. I removed the tags and did some editing. I removed the refs to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is unreliable as anybody can edit. Bgwhite (talk) 21:16, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Bgwhite: Thank you for all you've done to strengthen this article and make it comply with Wikipedia style and rules! --Delabrede

Floating the TOC

Hi Bgwhite, nothing personal, but this was discussed ad nauseum recently. If you still feel the same way, let's discuss rather that war. Cheers, Hwy43 (talk) 06:54, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Hwy43 You are confused. I'm not talking about the floating aspect. It can still be there. This is an accessibility issue for the blind.
Per WP:TOC
"If floating the TOC, it should be placed at the end of the lead section of the text, before the first section heading. Users of screen readers do not expect any text between the TOC and the first heading, and having no text above the TOC is confusing."
Per WP:LEAD
Avoid floating the table of contents if possible, as it breaks the standard look of pages. If you must use a floated TOC, put it below the lead section in the wiki markup for consistency. Users of screen readers expect the table of contents to follow the introductory text; they will also miss any text placed between the TOC and the first heading.
Bgwhite (talk) 07:01, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
Not confused. WP:TOC goes on to say:
"The default TOC is placed before the first headline, but after any introductory text (unless changed by the page's editors). If the introductory summary is long enough that a typical user has to scroll down to see the top of the TOC, you may float the TOC so it appears closer to the top of the article. However, the floating TOC should in most cases follow at least the first paragraph of article text."
We've tried forcing it to float right immediately after the first paragraph in the lead but have been unsuccessful thus far. Hwy43 (talk) 23:49, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
Re: the above discussion and the message on my talk page: indeed, screen reader users such as myself will most definitely miss the text between the TOC and the first heading because it's in a completely non-standard position. I can't think of a reasonable exception to this rule. The {{Compact ToC}} further down in the article is fine because it doesn't contain a heading. Graham87 02:10, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
Graham87, please clarify. With the TOC floated and positioned as is, you miss the text placed between the TOC and the first heading entirely, or the text is read unexpectedly by the screen reader after the TOC and before the first heading? I want to make sure I fully understand the problem. Hwy43 (talk) 03:43, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
The former. Most screen reader users will press "h" to move from the TOC to the first heading of the page, and thus miss any text between these two elements. Graham87 09:17, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
Graham87, what happens if screen reader users do not press "h"? Will the screen reader simply move from the TOC and finish reading the lead before arriving at the first heading? Hwy43 (talk) 19:36, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
@Hwy43: Yes, but 99% of the time they will indeed press "H" to move from the table of contents to the first heading. Graham87 01:07, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Changing from {{col-begin}} to {{columns-list}}, requires CSS3

You recently made a change on SQLite from using {{col-begin}} to using {{columns-list}}. While {{columns-list}} is easier for editors, in that the actual content of each column does not need to be adjusted by hand, it requires the use of CSS3. A significant percentage of internet users continue to use browsers which do not have CSS3 capability. At a minimum, this includes all versions of IE ≤ 9. One site that had internet usage broken down by browser version number, showed that IE8 and IE9 have a combined market share of slightly more than 30%. That means that by changing from using {{col-begin}} to using {{columns-list}} results in breaking the multi-column aspect of such lists for a minimum of 30% of internet users.

The primary advantage of using {{columns-list}}, in this instance, appears to be that it is easier for editors to not have to think about balancing the columns. As mentioned, the disadvantage is breaking the multi-column aspect of such lists for more than 30% of internet users. This disadvantage far outweighs the relatively minor advantage. We should not be changing from using {{col-begin}} to using {{columns-list}}. In fact, we currently should be changing any instances of {{columns-list}} to {{col-begin}} in order to maintain compatibility with that significant a segment of internet readership. In the future, when the percentage of CSS3 disadvantaged users is much smaller, we should migrate to using {{columns-list}}. Alternately, {{columns-list}} could be re-written in a manner that does not require CSS3.

Given that you used AWB to make this change, I am concerned that it might be something that is scripted and being performed on a large number of articles. Is this the case? Makyen (talk) 01:21, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Makyen FYI... Wikipedia does not officially support IE 8 and less, but does test against older versions. Newer features such as Visual Editor and Universal Language Selector will not work on older browsers. Well, Visual Editor doesn't work anywhere, but that is a different story. Come April, Windows XP will no longer be supported, thus the lowest supported IE is 9 on Vista. Wikipedia stats have 4.5% of all page hits coming from IE 8 and less. All IE versions combined make it the third most popular browser on Wikipedia.
I visited the article because it is using template variables. No article should have template variables. Also, you should not combine template and table elements. Either go all table or all template. If you want to continue using {{col-begin}} in the article, please use {{col-3}} or {{col-break}} to delineate columns. Bgwhite (talk) 06:45, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
I'd like to be able to say something reasonable about the template variables being in an article page. However, the reality is that was just stupid on my part; a copy&paste without thinking enough issue. Those have been removed.
I have also changed that table to not mix wiki markup and templates. As the templates are generally easier for editors to maintain, that is the way I left it.
I would be interested in where to find Wikipedia page hit information broken down by browser version. I did not find it in a moderately brief search. Could you point me in the direction of that information? I agree that earlier versions of IE are dying out. It will, probably, be some time before they are gone as a considerable number of people never upgrade, nor switch to a better browser. I still think that we should avoid making choices which break compatibility with older browsers. Sure, if what we want to accomplish can't be done any other way, or even if it is just hard to accomplish what is desired without using newer capabilities, then go ahead and do it. But to break backward compatibility just for a relatively minor convenience? I don't believe that is the right choice.
Thanks for pointing out my error/stupidity. Makyen (talk) 11:31, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Makyen, I retrieved the stats from here. This is for December 2013. Today, they released the stats for January 2014 and they are located here. The majority of those at 8 or below come from corporations. What's scary is the majority of ATMs run XP. "Thanks for pointing out my error/stupidity."... sorry, but my stupidity is usually greater than anyone else's stupidity, therefore I can't point out someone's stupidity. If it happens, its just dumb luck. Bgwhite (talk) 17:31, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Your recent email

Hi, I got your email, but I don't believe in holding Wikipedia discussions off-Wiki, except when meeting somebody face-to-face. I would have copied the text of your email here, but apparently that's a copyright violation.

Anyway, I think that this or this are what you are thinking of. For me, it is a bad edit if the intent is altered to something other than that of the person who placed the {{which}} or {{clarify}}; in these two cases I don't think that the intent was altered, but I would question the absence of any other changes (AWB rule 4 as ever). --Redrose64 (talk) 20:35, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Redrose. I didn't know about email and copyright. I've done that in the past. Now I know. Bgwhite (talk) 20:45, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Highbeam request

Do you still have HighBeam access? Would you be willing to dig out this and email it to me, please? I might have a conflict of interest with this one but the story he tells differs from that which appears at Edinburgh Vaults and elsewhere. It is sourced to this newspaper article but I played rugby with the guy in the 1990s, am still friendly with him and know his story from well before the article was published: it is and has consistently been somewhat different. We might be in a "verifiability not truth" situation, which would be unfortunate, but I'd like to check what the source actually says just in case there is some unintentional misrepresentation. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 10:32, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

This one would be useful also, if not too much trouble. - Sitush (talk) 13:40, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Mandarax, looks like I need to renew my account. Could you get these articles for Sitush? Bgwhite (talk) 17:55, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 Done. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 22:44, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Wikimania

Can you guide me here: User_talk:Titodutta#Namaste? Are you coming? Tito☸Dutta 17:41, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Dutta, I won't be attending. I'd have to apply for a scholarship and I'd need the help of my wife. I don't walk very well and need some help. You should go. 30% of the scholarship funding goes to your neck of the woods, so you would have a better chance of getting one. Make sure to mention you Sartverse work. Bgwhite (talk) 20:50, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
  • It seems it'll miss from my hands too. I have these problems at these moments— do they provide 100% scholarship? Firstly some problems and then they are not accepting my application form too "invalid error, missing the request forgery protection token". I mailed their help team, no one replied. What happened to your walking? Tito☸Dutta 21:08, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Tethered spinal cord syndrome — very unfortunate and heartbreaking. I have filled the form. ping requires a signature, otherwise it does not workTito☸Dutta 22:40, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
  • I am a bit hesitant. I have applied for travel scholarship. I need to apply for passport. If there is not any chance of my scholarship application's approval, my money for the passport will get wasted. I have checked their budget, Fresh>>18 years and above>>36 pages>>Normal, they are asking ₹1,500 (US$18). My current salary is slightly more than USD 60/month. Do you think my application will have some chances? --Tito☸Dutta 00:38, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Your Revert on Cryonics

Hello. Could you explain why you (and a subsequent user rolf nelson) have reversed my edits to the Cryonics entry? I've never edited a wikipedia entry so may not fully understand etiquette/rules. But I am trying to ensure that the important role played by Lawrence Jensen in the early formulation and publicity of cryonics is included in its history (as Alcor does in its own accounting).132.198.112.180 (talk) 15:33, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Feel free to ask me anytime. I reverted only a portion of your edit. You removed sourced (has references) material. If one does that, there needs to be a reason why given in the edit summary for each source removed. From my point of view, I don't know why you removed it. Was it a legit edit, vandalism edit or a point-of-view edit? So, I added back the material. Bgwhite (talk) 18:04, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. If I removed sourced material, it was in error. My only intent was to add additional info to the history section. I suppose I'll try again soon and see how I fair. Thanks again.132.198.112.180 (talk) 18:44, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Bot edits

Can you explain why the bot is doing this, citing that it is removing a double http://. To me, it is only swapping two references, and I don't see why that needs to be done (I would even argue, that in the original situation the references were in order of time). Overall, it is almost a NULL-edit (not a substantial change). --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:12, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

I generated a list of articles containing the problem from the last dump. The Nebraska article did contain a problem. I reran the list to make sure to remove any articles that were already fixed. Obviously, I ran the bot on the original list and not the updated one. Bgwhite (talk) 09:27, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
I understand, but I do not understand why it was swapping the references. --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:45, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
References are supposed to go in the order they appear in the article... numerical order. This is part of the "general fixes" portion of AWB. Removing cases of double http is also part of general fixes. This is one reason I try to remove already fixed articles. Besides my stupidity from above, it is not always feasible. Bgwhite (talk) 06:05, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
Ah, I missed that, that is unclear from the diff that one of the refs was already used. Thank you for the clarification. --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:19, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Sorry to revive the point of the sorting of references, but I see that Yobot does basically the same, reported by another editors. I did not consider it further, but I think I agree there - references are supposed to be in the order that they are chosen by the editor, and references can be major over another which was earlier used. See User talk:Yobot#Please stop improper editing. I however do agree that "[42],[1] looks strange .. I am however not sure if a bot should override that, that should be a considered choice. --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:37, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

I've undone this - I again stress that this is practically a null-edit, and that it overrides what may very well have been an editorial choice - there is no way a bot could distinguish that and therefore, the feature should be disabled. This was brought up independently at Yobot as well, I do not believe it is consensus or convention anymore (nor that it should be). Can you please resolve the issue? Thanks. --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:58, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Dirk Beetstra I fixed the unbalanced bracket which caused a problem to the page. -- Magioladitis (talk) 13:09, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I missed that part of the edit - this is not a null-edit then, my apologies. --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:19, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Beetstra, Magioladitis did remove reordering of references "feature" from AWB. However, the vast majority of AWB users will not be using the fix until the next version of AWB comes out. There are a few of us, including Magioladitis and me, that do compile the latest code ourselves. It is not a trivial procedure to compile it. I have to edit some of the code to make compile on my "newer" system. As this "feature" has been around since I started using AWB (2011), waiting a little longer for everyone to get the next update is not a big deal in the long run. Bgwhite (talk) 19:02, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Full pagenames such as template {official website}

Thanks for your prompt reply at User talk:Magioladitis re Unicode characters (where I have continued).

Yesterday I almost asked about a Bgwhite revision that inserted 'website' after {official, thus using the full template name. Is that valuable? No doubt I have used {official| more than 100 times which I will cease if it costs more heat than it saves space, or whatever is at stake. --P64 (talk) 20:01, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

P64, {{Official}} is a redirect to {{Official website}}. AWB automagically changes a redirect to the original template's name. Wikipedia's policy is redirects use little computing power (aka templates are cheap), thus use either one. I look at it from a new user and programming view. {{Official website}} is more obvious to a new user on what it does. It may be cheap, but it does take some (very, very small) time to process. It is a nightmare program as you have to program in the template name, but also all the redirects and new redirects are added all the time. So, long story short, it is fine to use either one. Bgwhite (talk) 21:50, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

way to cite OED

Thanks so much for your help fixing my attempted edits to juggernaut. You must have noticed I had trouble with Template:OED and then forgot I was proxied in when it seemed to work okay. When I figure this out, I will be meaning to get back to our coworker who posted on Template_talk:OED about part of the problem. Since your help, two syntax glitches came up. One I fixed. The other left me puzzled about the instructions at Help:CS1_errors#wikilink_in_url. Could you please be so kind as cop another quick gander at juggernaut and see if you can fix the link, ideally linking to both OED and to [[20]] (subscription required) or else whatever our best-practice solution is? Hope you have the time... tnx, - phi (talk) 09:33, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

I fixed the template OED problem. I'm not seeing the syntax glitch of Help:CS1 errors#wikilink in url. The glitch means there is a wikilink inside an external link. As the external links show up as blue the wikilink also shows up in blue, having both in the same spot makes the wikilink invisible. Ask questions anytime. That's what I'm here for. Bgwhite (talk) 21:57, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Yalladar

Well, you are right about one thing, I am Yalladar. But, you are also wrong about another, with all due respect, I'm not the one making any mistakes, you are. And if you disagree with me, at least explain why or prove it, instead of getting me into a lot of trouble. Look, I'm not trying to do anything wrong here on Wikipedia, I'm just here creating and editing articles of Jordanian football players, coaches, and teams. I don't mean to brag, but honestly, I have the most knowledge about stuff like this or anything relating to it here on Wikipedia. I know what I'm doing. I'm just trying to help by making contributions to Wikipedia, is that so wrong?! I apologize if I really have ever violated any of this website's laws or done anything else wrong. And every time I say something like this to people like you who always get me into trouble here on this website, they never reply because they know they're wrong, and no matter how many more times you guys try to stop me from contributing to this website, I will not stop!!! We both know I'm not doing anything wrong, or at least not trying to. You guys have always been unfair with me by banning me from contributing anymore for no valid reason. So basically, you guys get me in trouble by helping you. The only ones who you should be getting in trouble are those who get into edit wars with me and those who provide inaccurate information on articles like those, and I'm not one of them. I have just as much right to contribute just like anyone else here on Wikipedia. Listen, all I'm asking is for you guys to stop reverting or deleting my edits, reporting me to Wiki authorities, and having me banned from contributing. What harm can be done?!

Replied at User talk:Yalladar#Yalladar. Bgwhite (talk) 23:02, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Köchel edit

Thanks for finding, then fixing some of the errors I made! I really appreciate it. ZSNES (talk) 07:28, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

ZSNES, no problem. Is your username based on ZSNES? Used to play with that in the late 90s. Bgwhite (talk) 09:19, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
It is actually! Love the SNES. Question for you, though: do you commonly edit articles pertaining to Classical Music? Just wondering how you stumbled upon the catalogue :-). ZSNES (talk) 09:29, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
ZSNES, I get reports of problems with articles. The Köchel article was on a broken bracket report. I don't listen to any music except when my wife has something playing. Bgwhite (talk) 23:33, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
Ah, interesting. Well, take care, and thank you again, Bgwhite. ZSNES (talk) 00:08, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

AWB protect template

Is there any way like templates to add an AWB protection in article? For example in Dhoom 2, the sentence is
Mr. A announces that he will steal an ancient warrior
it is fine. Here Mr. A does not need be changed to Mr. An. Anyway to add any template here? Tito☸Dutta 00:03, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Tito, there are a couple of ways. For typos like you mentioned, {{not a typo}} is the answer. For bigger problems, then use {{Bots}}. Bgwhite (talk) 00:10, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Morse code

Please note this bot error turning pre-formatted text into a heading. SpinningSpark 13:40, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Spinningspark, the bot worked just fine. The text was not pre-formatted, just indented. Pre-formatted text uses the <pre> tag. See WP:PRE for more information. Bgwhite (talk) 22:13, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
Using a leading space to create preformatted text is a standard Wikimedia feature. See MW:Help:Formatting. Like many wiki markup features, it is intended to be simpler to type and use than html-like tags. Preventing editors from using this feature cannot possibly be described as the bot working fine. The article was displaying fine before the bot edited and was messed up after the bot edited. That is not good. SpinningSpark 09:25, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
Spinningspark, adding a bunch of &nbsp; makes it easier how? The <pre> option in this case makes things easier to read. I also filled a bug report. Bgwhite (talk) 09:36, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
Also, <pre> maybe an html tag, but so are &nbsp;. 50 html tags or 2 html tags with things written as shown on screen? Indenting is for simple stuff, pre tags make complex stuff easier to read and write. Bgwhite (talk) 09:52, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
I don't have an issue with getting rid of the html character codes. I admit that I did not notice you had cleaned that up. My apologies for not reading your edit carefully enough before reverting you. None of that changes the fact that leading spaces should not be automatically removed. They are valid formatting and may well be deliberate. SpinningSpark 10:19, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bgwhite/Archive_24&oldid=1075217959"