Jump to content

User talk:Bgwhite/Archive 42

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 35←Archive 40Archive 41Archive 42Archive 43Archive 44Archive 45

I had furnished some informations as heading Post Held Surender Singh Narwal It had been removed? Informations are true.Virender Singh Narwal (talk) 20:06, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Paul Steinhardt

Hi there - I'm trying to improve the Paul Steinhardt page so it meets wiki standards. I've reviewed the wiki style page (again) and made some changes to clean up the layout, which I hope you will see are an improvement. Perhaps I've been trying to be too cryptic because the subject is so complicated. Maybe that's why it seemed too much like a CV, which is not my intent. I'm just trying to chronicle his scientific contributions. Is it the inclusion of dates that are a problem? The date are especially important in the inflation section. They're relevant in the other sections as well, but I could work them into the copy if you think that would be better. I'm just trying to organize the information in a readable format.

I don't know Dr. Steinhardt, I'm just a fan. So I can't write the story of how he came up with all these unbelievably complicated equations and insights. But I CAN track his contribution to science through his work, and I really believe that is something that will be of great use to Wikipedia readers. I worked very hard on this page and very much want to make it work. Just like you, I have the best of intentions. Is there something specific I can do better?Sleepy Geek (talk) 22:52, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Sleepy Geek Thank you for contacting me.
One can be just a fan and not be neutral. This is especially true for articles on actors, musicians or sport teams.
My main concern is the article is just a list of bullet points, just like a CV. Articles are usually paragraphs. Not all of it needs to be mentioned.
Let's take the "Discovery of Natural Quasicrystals" section...
  1. Doesn't need to be bullet points... paragraphs.
  2. The "By coincidence" sentence doesn't need to be there. Doesn't add anything.
  3. ref #43 in that section leads nowhere.
  4. You mention the exact same thing for steinhardtite in the geoscience section and Quasicrystals sections
  5. (see Geoscience section)... no, the geoscience section and Quasicrystals section need to be combined, especially with icosahedrite in both sections. Reader shouldn't go back and forth.
  6. There is no wikilinks. What is a icosahedrite? It is wikilinked at the beginning, but needs one link here too. Add more that seem appropriate.
  7. It seems every sentence as Steinhardt. Steinhardt may have led or organized expeditions, but it is a group effort. No need to mention Steinhardt specifically (or his son).
Bgwhite (talk) 23:47, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi again- I've now made all the fixes you suggested, along many similar fixes in other places, as well. Your suggestion to combine Natural Quasicrystals and Geoscience was especially good, and a big improvement. What do you think now? Also: I've been going through and manually adding wiki-links...do more experienced users have a more efficient (automated) way of doing that? Thanks again for your very helpful advice. Sleepy Geek (talk) 19:16, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Sleepy Geek, much better. You went a little overboard with the wikilinks. You don't need to have the same wikilink in the same paragraph or section. I went thru and removed the duplicates.
I couldn't find the following ref: Vaas, R., ed. (2011). Beyond the Big Bang. Springer-Verlag. Bgwhite (talk) 17:54, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi there - Thanks so much for all this help, your advice really helped me improve the page in short order. I replaced the problematic footnote (#16 on the list), with a link to the relevant paper on his website. Nice to have another pair of eyes.Sleepy Geek (talk) 19:40, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

The Copyeditor's Barnstar
Thanks for encouraging and helping a new user! Sleepy Geek (talk) 00:36, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 26 March

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) 00:24, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

My revert

I saw that you undid my revert. To clarify my point, I should tell you that my aim was not to oppose your edits and I wanted to keep the article in a good shape but I did not want to concentrate on finding the missing code! So, I undid it so that the article got in shape once again. Now, I see no problem with that because an IP, I think, fixed them. Btw, thanks for your efforts. Mhhossein (talk) 05:34, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Re: M-63

Whatever you're "fixing" on M-63 (Michigan highway)‎‎, no one can tell what it is in the sea of other changes. Your edit shifted all sorts of text all around, without any effect other than to obscure whatever it is you're attempting to fix. Please isolate whatever change it is you wish to affect, without moving things willy nilly, so that others can see the specific fix. We can't learn whatever the issue is to attempt to avoid it if we can't find whatever the actual fix is! Imzadi 1979 → 22:07, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Imzadi1979, search for { and } in the article, not in edit mode. Bgwhite (talk) 22:42, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Gravine Island Fix

Thank you for trying to cleanup the article at Gravine Island. I had to revert the fix however because the fix removed the proper map in the article. The diff of the change is here. Your edit summary sais it fixed error #34. Thanks for trying. JodyB talk 11:38, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Bridgeport Paiute Indian Colony of California

Can you elaborate on why you rolled back my change? Visual editor barfed does not give me any info on improvements needed and the changed looked visually fine when I made it. Benjamin Kerensa 05:34, 30 March 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bkerensa (talk • contribs)

Bkerensa, it didn't look visually fine when you made the changes. I'm not sure why Visual Editor added 40 <span> tags all over the place or exactly what you were trying to do. I can only guess that you trying to add two external links, but I'm at a loss with geographic coordinates. Try adding one thing at a time instead off all in one edit. Maybe Visual Editor won't barf that way. Bgwhite (talk) 05:49, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Request to Re-Protect Rape in India

Sorry to bother you, could you reprotect the Rape in India page, or at lease semi protect it? To force discussion there? The IP editing there, in light of what the fracas between OccultZone and me, seems to me like a sick attempt to frame me. Even if its a coincidence, OccultZone will just use it against me. I know this 2 are selfish reasons. But more importantly, forcing discussion to talk was the best thing to happen to the page in a while. Seek your understanding on this, thanks. Zhanzhao (talk) 02:53, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Zhanzhao, OccultZone has caused or has been part of many fracases. Don't worry about it. I think I'll report you as a sock of OccultZone. That would be fun to watch. :) Bgwhite (talk) 06:28, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
I hope that was humor on your part, Bgwhite, but please don't. I just want to drop by one in a while here and help out however little I can, and be left in peace while doing so. See that the page has been protected. Thanks, the active editors there will appreciate it. I never realised that article was a such a landmine. Zhanzhao (talk) 07:54, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
Zhanzhao Would better said as an "attempt" at humor. Stop by or ask a question any time. Bgwhite (talk) 07:57, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
I don't understand why have the page been set to high protection level? I've posted statements on the talk page, but nobody is responding to them, so I assume it would be okay to edit? Bargolus (talk) 10:01, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
I've submitted a complaint under Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. now Bargolus (talk) 11:41, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
Bargolus You used two different IPs and your user account to revert the edits. You were reverted by five different people. You were told to take it to talk page, which you did after the 4th revert, but you went on to revert as a different IP and then the user account. When you left the talk message, you revert 90 minutes later. Really? 90 minute wait is ok to start reverting again? After putting page protection up to stop IP edits, you started reverting via your username.
This is full of fail. Stop editing as multiple IP and just use your username. You can be blocked for reverting three time in a 24-hour period. You did violate this and I can block you. When discussion is going on, you do not revert. Bgwhite (talk) 21:35, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
Okay, sorry, I don't think I get the wikipedia policies quite yet. It would be helpful if you could answer two questions on this:
1) How do people decide whether or not to take things to the talk page? People said there was "consensus", but anyone can claim consensus, I didn't see any evidence that they've already been through the topic and established a consensus.
2) If people just refuse to engage on the talk page and ignore my request to talk, what is the process for recommencing edits? Bargolus (talk) 01:46, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Also should add using multiple IPs is not intentional - I haven't really engaged with wikipedia before and I was just editing anonymously from home and then the office later on, but I'll use my login ID from now on. Bargolus (talk) 01:50, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Bargolus When there is an edit war, multiple reverts or two people disagreeing, take it to the talk page. Reverting back and forth does no good.
I didn't see people ignoring your request in this instance. But, if they ignore and they still revert, you can ask for help. You can ask somebody else for help or can ask for help at a board, such as Edit Warring noticeboard or at another noticeboard.
Editing as a username sure helps, especially in cases like this one. More importantly, using different IPs can be seen as Sockpuppetry. Not only does this make the argument you are putting for meaningless (people discount same arguments from multiple IPs), it can result in blocks.
I'm having trouble following your arguments on the talk page. It is very confusing. Maybe start small. Talk about minor changes first or just one part that you are trying to change. I'm not sure what your native language is, but maybe talking to somebody in your native language would help??? If you tell me what it is, I can direct you to an editor who speaks that language. Bgwhite (talk) 07:35, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Okay thanks for responding. I will try to write a section where I outline everything more clearly and simply, so it becomes easy to follow! The only concern I have is if some users just refuse to listen to your arguments and don't engage with them. For example, if a user says, like one of them on the Rape in India talk page that he/she has no further interest in engaging with me. Does that then mean you can never ever edit that section again? Bargolus (talk) 12:04, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Have added a section explaining one of my points in detail. Is this clear? If you think it is clear, I'll add the other points in a similar style. My native language is practically English as I have lived in the UK for much of my life, but that doesn't prevent me from writing incoherently sometimes if I put a long paragraph down fast! Bargolus (talk) 12:27, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Tech News: 2015-14

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

Recent changes

  • You can now hide site banners even if you don't have an account. [1]
  • You can now add citations more easily with VisualEditor on the French and Italian Wikipedia. The tool adds the information when you add some types of links. In the future you will be able to add this tool to your wiki. [2] [3] [4]
  • All sites should now be faster if you have a recent browser. [5]
  • You could see a serious bug when editing some templates with VisualEditor. It was fixed quickly. [6]
  • VisualEditor could break when you edited an image. The issue was fixed quickly. [7]

Changes this week

  • The new version of MediaWiki has been on test wikis and MediaWiki.org since March 25. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis from March 31. It will be on all Wikipedias from April 1 (calendar).
  • VisualEditor is now the main editing tool on 53 more Wikipedias. [8]
  • You can now edit the mobile site of all wikis without an account. [9]
  • You can test a new tool on the beta mobile site on the English Wikipedia. With the new tool, you can create lists of articles. [10]
  • You can now see that VisualEditor is opening even if you're not looking at the top of the page. [11]
  • VisualEditor doesn't leave empty titles with just nowiki tags any more. [12] [13] [14] [15]

Meetings

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

15:18, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

NWA Central States Television Championship

Thank you for catching that, I had not seen that when I posted the expanded article but I knew what to fix so it's taken care of.  MPJ -US  20:34, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Eastern Orthodox Church

Hi Bgwhite. Sorry about that, but I had to revert to the last known good config and in the process your edits and the bot's got reverted too. Could you possibly check the article again? Many thanks. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 21:08, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Δρ.Κ. Thank you. I've just ran things manually. Bgwhite (talk) 21:42, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
You are very kind Bgwhite, but I am actually the one who has to thank you for the great work you do. :) Take care. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 21:48, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Little concerned

Hi Bgwhite. I was asked to look into the recent incidents with OccultZone. You can see what I've said on his talk page. Now, whilst I was looking into things, I did see a few actions by you which concerned me a bit and I was hoping to address them with you.

  • Unilateral unblocking. It's certainly within your gift to unilaterally unblock when an admin has unilaterally blocked - but I generally recommend against doing it. No one contacted Swarm to ask him about the block. Given that his block message mentioned "protracted" edit warring - looking for a longer pattern seemed sensible. Overturning a block, especially on a topic that is near discretionary sanctions, without talking to the blocking admin... seems foolhardy. I do ask that you endeavour to either talk to the blocking admin or at least get a second opinion next time.
  • Blurred lines. I see you parachuted in, locked the article and tried to sort out the mess - which is admirable. Certainly, the way you acted on the 23rd, whilst a little unorthodox, certainly fit within IAR as a good way to cut the Gordian Knot. The problem comes later - when you undid an edit made by an IP, followed by semi-protecting, followed by reverting an editor and then fully protecting the page.

    So what's your role there? It has become very blurred - as you're basically "protecting" your own edits at the exclusion of other editors, something admins really shouldn't be doing. What's more, your reasons for protection are not accurate - there's no way the edits are "Vandalism", since vandalism by definition needs to have an intent to harm the encyclopedia. Unfortunately, it's left you open to accusations of being "WP:INVOLVED".

If you could refrain from using your tools further at the Rape in India article, I'd certainly appreciate it. WormTT(talk) 11:28, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Actually now less concerned about the second one there - having read your talk page (I'd missed that when reviewing what when on). WormTT(talk) 11:34, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
Worm That Turned Sorry, but you are not helping by parachuting in, feeding OZ's paranoia and giving in to his forum shopping. You are now the 5th admin on his talk page to comment about the first block, including the third person that was contacted OZ. You are the 2nd admin contacted to comment on the second block. I've had several people contact me saying OZ is going around asking to review the block and for me to be blocked, dysoped and banned via IRC, Google talk and email. I'm not going to read your comments at OZ's talk page as I refuse to read anything there for my own sanity... OZ does not understand his own actions, does not listen to advice given him and is only out for blood. I'm not reading and just deleting the emails OZ sent me with threatening subject lines, even though I've asked him not send me emails like he did Swarm.
I've had every party thank me for helping out during the first "war" on Rape in India. You've also missed other talk pages, such as User talk:SlimVirgin#Help please. I've acted neutral. I've asked for input from all parties. Yet, even though I've ironically acted in what OccultZone has wanted, I'm labeled as involved by him and you, plus told to no long edit there. Now YOU have left Rape in India wide open to the edit warring, OZ labeling anybody against him a sock puppet and have OZ getting want he wanted via a temper tantrum. You've left me utterly disgusted and hurt by your comments about my involvement at Rape in India. I've never been so hurt by a Wiki comment before. Bgwhite (talk) 18:02, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Bgwhite It's true that if OZ has served their first block for 72 hours things might have been better now. Ofcourse, we can't turn time back. -- Magioladitis (talk) 20:38, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Magioladitis Yup. It's all my fault. First time I unblocked anybody and it is the last time I will ever do it. Last time I block anybody too. It is not worth the hassle. What really hurts is Worm That Turned doesn't even look at my talk page, other talk pages or even asks me what is up, but it is all my fault and I should have asked the blocking admin first. Did Diannaa get reprimanded for not talking to me first before unblocking? No. I'm the only evil one for not asking first. With Worm's comments getting me so riled up, you know I can't stay around here. I'm going to be gone for awhile. I'll be working on Checkwiki code, so you can work with me there. OZ is saying he will be taking me to arbcom, so this will not end for several weeks to come. Bgwhite (talk) 21:40, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Worm That Turned I've left a message at Talk:Rape in India that you will be the one moderating the page now. Note, 6 of 7 editors mentioned, OZ has accused them of being a sock puppet. 5 of 7 editors, OZ has had been in an editor war. One of them is currently blocked for two weeks for warring with OZ... the same person that OZ was reverting the talk page that I did a 3RR for. There is currently an edit request waiting. One of two people making the request has already made it, but was shot down by OZ as being a sock puppet. Bgwhite (talk) 22:16, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Bgwhite, I'm sorry I hurt your feelings, that wasn't my intention. I've spent 2 years on Arbcom, seeing the worst of Wikipedia, and I do admit it's left me jaded and probably seeing things which aren't there. At the same time - one thing that really annoyed me whilst on Arbcom was the total lack of discussion, the fact that people never talk to each other, never bring up issues with an admin before it gets too far.
If you looked at the message I left OZ, you would have seen I made the following points:
  • His first block was reasonable
  • His second block was reasonable
  • You are not involved.
  • I'm planning to restrict him to 1RR on all India-Pakistan pages.
I made this clear to OZ, and I've had backlash from him since. I've gone on to point out that sockpuppet accusations need to be kept off the talk page and kept in SPI.
But the fact is, from the outside - you unilaterally overturned a block as unwarranted without talking to the admin. That's not good, there was no rush. Then, you reverted and increased the level of protection on the Rape in India article twice, calling it "vandalism". That's not on - at all. We've got admin accountability for a reason and if you're not able to talk about your actions, I'm sorry, but that needs to be addressed.
As for your accusations of threatening emails, depending on what he's been sending, I will be blocking him indefinitely. Could you please forward them to me or to Arbcom? If you have indeed deleted them and therefore do not have evidence, could you please retract the accusation. I'm afraid I've blocked users in the past for carrying on with similar accusations and I would rather not get into that again. I'll be contacting Swarm for the same. WormTT(talk) 07:28, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Happy Easter

Happy Easter
Happy Easter ! Hafspajen (talk) 19:03, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Hermenegildo Gutiérrez

Hello BGwhite, could you please move Hermenegildo Gutiérres back to the original name: Hermenegildo Gutiérrez? If you have any questions about the move, please contact me. I created the article but again we have a Portuguese vs.Spanish war. He was from Galicia, count in Portugal, when Portugal was still a county, and most sources call him Hermenegildo Gutiérrez, including the ones that I used when I created the article. I tried to move him from Hermenegildo Guterres but made a mistake, so Hermenegildo Gutiérres should be destroyed, afterwards, since the spelling is incorrect and Hermenegildo Guterres should stay as a redirect. Many thanks, --Maragm (talk) 17:06, 4 April 2015 (UTC) pd..the same with Mendo Gonçalves back to original name, Menendo González

Both have been moved already, so please disregard previous message.Maragm (talk) 06:29, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Assistance

Hi BgWhite, I see you are a master editor. I'm reaching out to see if you can help me in adding an article about economics without violating the complex policies. Can you help? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phd.dr.candidate (talk • contribs) 14:45, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

La notte della Repubblica

The English correct title is The night of Republic or The night of the Republic? --151.65.228.152 (talk) 17:16, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

151.65.228.152 You are correct... della means "of the" in Italian. I changed it to The night of the Republic. Bgwhite (talk) 22:02, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Default sort messing up article sort

Hi. Wondering why we add "default sort" to articles when it doesn't change how they sort. We now have hundreds of language articles that sort improperly because they've been moved since defaultsort was added. So there's a downside, but I don't see any upside. Different of course if there's non-ASCII characters in the name that mess up the sorting. — kwami (talk) 17:11, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

kwami we do this to delist them from the list of pages with special characters in their title. This helps us to know which pages we still have to deal with. -- Magioladitis (talk) 17:52, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
kwami, there are three main reasons to add Defaultsort. 1) When there is not the standard 26-letter English alphabet, number and a few special characters present. Special characters are not that obvious, but and example would be using "&" or "and". Rules followed are from the major libraries and indexing associations. These are the articles on the lists that Magioladitis mentioned. 2) Names of People. Example, western names are usually sorted surname, firstname. I do add defaultsort to biography articles where the name is identical to defaultsort. It keeps AWB or other people from adding the wrong value. 3) Articles that shouldn't be sorted by their title. "List of" articles are the most common. Bgwhite (talk) 21:52, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
I remember it occurring with language articles with only ASCII characters, but will keep my eyes open for examples. — kwami (talk) 22:18, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
kwami If you see cases where there shouldn't be a defaultsort, then just remove it. I do remove them. People do add it thinking it needs one. If you want to get really confused, see WP:SORTKEY (especially 3rd item, "Only hyphens, apostrophes...") and WP:NAMESORT. I mostly wrote NAMESORT, so I can increase your confusion if you have questions to the confusion on the page. :) Bgwhite (talk) 22:31, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
You will often see older articles with a defaultsort which differs from the page name purely in its capitalisation. This is a legacy of a time when category sorting was case-sensitive: sorting was uppercase first, then lowercase, so that "a" sorted after "Z". As a result, it was normal practice that if any word in the page name began with a lowercase letter, like Oxford railway station, the article would be given e.g. {{DEFAULTSORT:Oxford Railway Station}} (like this) so that it would sort before Oxford Rewley Road railway station instead of after Oxford Youth Theatre. In March 2011, category sorting became case-insensitive, so that "a" sorts with "A"; and so when you find such cases, they may safely be removed, like this. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:44, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Hey there could you explain to me then step by step how to properly place a navbox? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ramosc55 (talk • contribs) 04:04, 3 April 2015

Ramosc55 I've been off wiki for a week. What article are you looking at to add one? Bgwhite (talk) 22:04, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
I am looking to add it to Notre Dame Catholic Secondary School (Ajax). There's already a navbox in that article but you said I didn't do it properly. I want to add the navbox into all articles that are mentioned in that navbox. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ramosc55 (talk • contribs) 03:55, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) @Ramosc55: In these edits, you seem to have copied code bit by bit from inside Template:High Schools in Ajax, with the result that effectively you used {{subst:High Schools in Ajax}} instead of {{High Schools in Ajax}}. I have fixed it. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:39, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi Bgwhite

I think, the page 'Stephen Gill, the Writer' was right, which you have deleted today. Kindly think to reinstate it. The information was absolutely genuine. I think, you even didn't read my talk-page, where I requested that the ultra new matter has been uploaded and the previous one was replaced/deleted. You must check it.

Mehtabmasih You did a copy and paste. Please don't copy other material. It was also not written in a neutral point of view. Bgwhite (talk) 07:29, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you

Hi Bgwhite, I just wanted to thank you for being around for users, and not getting irate at wind ups. Please stick around, Wikipedia needs people like you. All the best, 81.129.188.25 (talk) 18:07, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

What?

It's a bit unprofessional to say "I'm sick of you", I don't thing you should address other users like this,

Very respectfully,

User:Perdika,

Perdika I never said that. Please don't lie. On your talk page I said, "I'm getting sick and tired of fixing everything you touch." I've warned you multiple times now. You keep doing the same mistakes in every article you edit. You keep adding bogus references. Do it correctly. Bgwhite (talk) 20:12, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

OK Will do,

Sheikh Mohammad Iqbal

Sir, first of all, allow me to thank you for making some technical improvements to this article. but i would have definitely not objected if your recent changes had been legitimate. Firstly, Read the "Talk' page of this article carefully. the subject of this article is a widely-known personality of the twentieth century era when there was no internet. As i have already stated in the talk page, i have the hard copies of the newspapers and the journals and other media outlets which have published about the important endeavors of the subject earning him international fame. thats why there are some of his books without an internet reference (like the History of Islam series) because internet did not even exist during that period. He has written numerous books and has won appreciations from even the former US President. Secondly, the photos of the subject are with VVIPs who have been Presidents, influential ministers and Scholars of world fame. Thirdly, not every scholar on planet gets a chance to be the Fulbright-hays scholar from entire Asia and teach in American Universities... Finally, i would like to tell you that the article is still in the making. There is a lot to be written in this article. It will be a comprehensive article dealing with all the aspects of the subject's character. So i would request you not to be so impatient to hastily make absurd key changes to the article... thanks User:S M M Iqbal Incidentally, i should request you to revert your latest changes with regard to the "unreferenced" content.

S M M Iqbal There is no need to spread this on three different talk pages. Please keep it on one page. Again:
You have been warned against editing your own article by me and other people.
Things are supposed to be written neutrally... saying accomplished biographer or renowned Islamic Scholar is not neutral.
Things must be referenced. See WP:BLP and Wikipedia:Verifiability
Reference that are by you are not to be used for referencing third parties. You cannot list a reference from yourself that says you won a fulbright.
Please sign your posts with for tildas... ~~~~
Bgwhite (talk) 21:25, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Bgwhite
  1. Its just you who has been editing this article and there is no one besides you who has warned me from editing my own article.
  2. saying that things should be written neutrally is absolutely right, but at the same time, cant i even 'quote what a newspaper has published'. If the newspaper has written "prominent historian," am i not allowed to write the same?
  3. regarding Verifiability, ofcourse wikipedia has its own terms and conditions and we have to abide by that. So i am working on it.
  4. ٰI didt understand that "tildas" part.. thank u
1) On the article's talk page, you were warned by Wikicology. There is also a COI tag on the talk page.
2) Usually not. This is called peacock words. In this specific case, the newspaper doesn't know if a person is "prominent" or not. They fling around peacock terms with everybody in the article.
4) End all your talk messages with four tildas. This will sign your message, just like the end off all my posts. See here ---> Bgwhite (talk) 22:40, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanx

Thanx for the catch... I'm surprised that I got no notice from a bot on that one... Don't worry about correcting... I know which pages have been done and can go through the list, making the correction more easily than you can... GWFrog (talk) 22:51, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

GWFrog I should have them all corrected. They were picked up by Checkwiki. I sure wish there was an "idiot filter" to pick up cases like this before pressing save. Sure would save me alot of time from my own "idiot" mistakes. Bgwhite (talk) 22:56, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Like I said, I'm surprised there was no notice from the bot that usually catches those pesky broken brackets... As I've been going over them, I've found others caught by Dale Arnett and some done on a different day that were okay... GWFrog (talk) 23:01, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Okay, I fixed California Golden Bears, FIU Panthers, Florida State Seminoles, Louisiana–Monroe Warhawks , New Mexico Lobos, and New Orleans Privateers; found I had not changed New Orleans Privateers ‎to the proper cite format; and discovered that another editor, in redoing the South Carolina Gamecocks article, completely removed the teams list for the school's 21 teams, while only covering 14 of them in the text... All 45 schools sponsoring sand volleyball should now be good to go on the sport... Again, thanx muchly for catching the problem... GWFrog (talk) 01:07, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Why are you wiping my recent edits?

You have just wiped recent edits I have made claiming they are spam and that I have been using AWB to do the,m. This is not true. I am the author of both books - the references I have been replacing (by hand, individually - not by using AWB). The reason I am changing them is that I am replacing the earlier references from my first edition to those from my second, corrected, updated and enlarged edition of the book - and the only one now in print. If you have a good reason for reverting my edits - please let me know - otherwise I will be forced to revert your edits. Sincerely, John Hill (talk)

John Hill. You are adding your own self-published books as a reference. 1) This is a conflict of interest. 2) This is spam. 3) Createspace is a self-publishing firm. Self-published books are not reliable. Bgwhite (talk) 06:20, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
I am not adding my books - I am replacing references from the first edition of my book with the later edition of that book. And I must ask you to reconsider your comment that self-published books are not reliable. Some may well be - just as some books published by reliable renowned publishing houses may not be reliable. You need to check more than the publisher to know if a work can be considered "reliable."
Take a look instead at the six unsolicited 5-star reviews of the first edition of my book on Amazon.com (at: http://www.amazon.com/Through-Jade-Gate-Rome-Centuries/dp/1439221340/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1429081248&sr=1-2&keywords=through+the+jade+gate+to+rome) and, when you add them to the fact that it has been quoted or cited as a reference in literally dozens of respected academic works, how can you label it as "not reliable"? Add that to the fact that a well-known European academic publisher is presently offering to publish my next book, as they were so impressed with my first book. Finally, on the basis of the success of my first book (which was also self-published) I was invited to participate in two international conferences - one in Beijing and another in Berlin (to which they actually paid the fares for both myself and my wife). Please, I don't want to get in a battle with you - nor am I querying your motives - I just cannot stand by and see you attacking my reputation - which is well-established in my field. Yours, John Hill (talk) 07:15, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
You are updating the book's citation. The original citation that you added. The original citation was to a self-published book. The link you gave at Amazon was to a self-published book. Amazon "reviews" mean nothing. I am not attacking your reputation. This has nothing to do with who you are. The simple fact is you are going around adding (or updating) your self-published book to articles. A book that has not undergone any peer review or review by a publisher. Again, per WP:SELFPUBLISH and WP:REFSPAM, the book is not allowed. Bgwhite (talk) 07:31, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
I feel like you are splitting hairs and forcing me to defend myself - a process I find distasteful. Well, the WP guidelines on self-published books includes this sentence: " Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." I hate to be in the position where I am forced to "blow my own horn," but I do think it is fair to say that I am widely considered an "established expert on the subject matter." and my book is considered a key reference in the field by most, if not all, serious students of this field of history.
And I reject your remark that "Amazon reviews mean nothing." These six 5-star reviews (and I have received nothing less than a five-star review) were all totally unsolicited by people I did not know - some of them professionals in the field. Saying they "mean nothing" is really unfairly attacking their reputations. They wouldn't have written such favourable reviews if they didn't mean what they said and were willing to say it in public.
I have shown above that my work has been widely accepted in the field as authoritative - otherwise it would not be quoted and referenced in so many peer-reviewed articles and books (actually there have been dozens if not scores of such quotes and references), nor would leading academics and authors have praised it so highly. I think that, if you don't agree with me, we should ask for some mediation here. Can you suggest what the appropriate forum would be to discuss the situation further and seek an independent judgement? Sincerely, John Hill (talk) 11:52, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
John Hill You have shown nothing. You have shown nothing that the work has been accepted or that your are an established expert. All you have shown me is your word and an Amazon link. Amazon review are not reliable... same goes for IMDb and other sites where user input is accepted. There is absolutely no way you can be partial. This is why Conflict Of Interest guidelines have been put in place. Bgwhite (talk) 19:47, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
John Hill I have left a posting at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Books by John Hill Bgwhite (talk) 20:38, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

"Severely botched"?

I don't understand why you reverted my edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cubic_metre_per_second&oldid=656391004&diff=prev

What's "severely botched" about it? Stevage 04:22, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Stevage It was done by Visual Editor and VE has a tendency to barf all over the page. So many things wrong...
Section header in the middle of a line made with <h2> tags. A reflist in a middle of an article. Use of <b> and <i> tags. I haven't a clue what <sup href="Wikipedia:Citing is supposed to mean. Bgwhite (talk) 04:35, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, ok. Maybe too ambitious to use the visual editor for this one. Actually rendered pretty much fine. Fixed now. Stevage 04:25, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

thank you

Thank you for fixing my without-a-space-after-the-comma DefaultSorts in Matthew Hurley and Fred Crecca. — Robert Greer (talk) 15:46, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Can we stop this bullshit about being the nth person to do sth?

Does the signpost have nothing more interesting to write about? "Congratulations, you're the 1 millionth person to cross this bridge, how do you feel? Here's your free cinema ticket, have a good day." Samsara 05:22, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Samsara Wake up on the wrong side of the bed? If you read the signpost or the quote I left, it did not say Congratulations or anything else like that. The Signpost just said the 5,000 FP milestone was passed and that is worth writing about. I added the congratulations. I added the thank you to Hafs for their work. If you don't like one editor telling another editor that they are appreciated, please keep it to yourself. Bgwhite (talk) 05:32, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
(watching) We arrived at praise being not wanted, such as this, - I was asked to apologize, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:53, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you!

... for cleaning up the neurofeedback page.

Cheers, Tom — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.244.32.181 (talk) 00:46, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Niger / Mali

In this edit, the "niger" and "mali" are not English and are correct. Before saving, please look through the edit to see if there are such instances where it does not fix anything, especially on language articles. --JorisvS (talk) 09:29, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

ANI

Check ANI, you must have received through the notification. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 09:31, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Changes to Merkle Inc. page

Hello - I made many changes/updates to the Merkle Inc. Wikipedia page, in good faith trying to bring the information current. It had not been updated in several years. I am Marketing Communications Director for the company, and we have had numerous leadership changes, revenue growth, employee increases, acquisitions, awards, etc., even our positioning as a CRM agency has shifted. All of these changes needed to be added to our profile. I made every effort to follow rules against promotional language, etc.

I tried my best to figure out the coding and everything seemed to be rendering properly. I am very unfamiliar with the Wiki language, and therefore am not surprised to learn that there are some errors. Unfortunately, I can't identify them. Is there any way you can help me pinpoint the errors so that I can correct them? I am getting pressure from the CEO to make sure this is up to date, and I am winging it here!

Thank you for any help you can provide!

Sherrena Sherrena (talk) 20:50, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Sherrena I've reverted my edit and went thru and cleaned things up. The article needs a severe overhaul. As it stands, it's more of an ad and really doesn't tell about the company. Bgwhite (talk) 00:56, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your help. We will keep working on the article. For context, when my colleague originally set up the page in 2012, our content kept being removed as promotional. We tried to be as factual as possible, avoiding adjectives that might inflate our status. We articulated what we do (which is consulting, data, analytics, technology, creative, and media services in support of performance marketing initiatives for large companies). We use the simplest terms we could manage to describe a relatively complicated business. Everything we wrote, the reviewers said was either promotional or needed a citation. When describing our own business, we didn't have third party sources. It's what we do. That's why we ended up with such a small amount of content about the company - we wasted many hours/days only to see our content taken down. So we decided to focus on a timeline of facts that we can cite sources for. Anyway, I will try again to describe what we do. If you feel it is too promotional, I would welcome input as to which specific claims are unacceptable, so I know what to change. Also, I updated our entire Executive Committee last week, and only 3 members are now showing. Does Wikipedia only allow Presidents and CEOs to be listed? Thanks again! Sherrena (talk) 17:49, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Sherrena Things can get confusing around here. Older people leave and newer ones arrive. To one editor it looks ok and to another it is not.
  1. Looking at some of the old reverts, this one I agree should be reverted. There is no need to list the offices along with a map. That is best kept on the company's website. This one I don't understand. It looks just fine.
  2. Somethings don't need to be sourced by a third party. Things about the company... officers, locations and employee numbers are info that comes directly from the company. A third party is getting the same info from the company. WP:SELFSOURCE is the rule on this.
  3. Not every executive needs to be listed in the infobox. You had way too many. Generally, only the Chairman, President and CEO are listed. See Walmart, General Electric, or IBM as examples.
Bgwhite (talk) 18:27, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Yes, it's hard for us newbies, because the process can be so subjective. But I'll navigate the best I can. Your feedback is very helpful, and I hope to be able to consult with you again should I have more questions. I'll see about adding back the information you found acceptable (it probably needs to be brought current, which I will do). Thanks again. Sherrena (talk) 19:48, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Sherrena, yes please don't hesitate to ask questions anytime. Bgwhite (talk) 19:54, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Q

How two pages can be merged? Goshince border post kidnapping (2015) and Gošince attack, they are about about the same event. Perdika (talk) 22:27, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Perdika The easiest way at this point would be for you to edit the Gošince attack. Copy the infobox over then edit the body of the article. When you are done, tell me and I can delete the other article. Bgwhite (talk) 22:37, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for the response, one more thing that interest me is the letter š . Can we not use it because it's Serbian Latin for (Serbian Cyrillic: ш) not Macedonian Latin for (Macedonian Cyrillic: ш), the Macedonian should be sh. Please see Sha Perdika (talk) 22:53, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Done I've copied the infobox and did some adjustment to the body of Gošince attack, can you please delete Goshince border post kidnapping (2015) as per our previous conversation on this subject? Perdika (talk) 23:02, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Perdika Done. The article is now much, much better. Good job. Bgwhite (talk) 23:57, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Georg Nees cleaning the small stuff

Hello Bgwhite, thanks for cleaning. Next time I taking better care for the en dash, hyphen and quotation marks. I have to train this. Regards --Maxim Pouska (talk) 08:20, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Theresa Hak Kyung Cha

Hi, I'm new to the editing thing. I'm reaching out to see if you could help me fix the page I started adding information to. the information is creditable. I don't know what I did to make Theresa Hak Kyung Cha page to get all weird. I'm editing the page as a project. All I have to do is add the information and most of it is there. I just don't know how to format the page correctly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Euphemia 1993 (talk • contribs) 13:22, 22 April 2015 (UTC) Euphemia 1993 I did some cleaning up of the article. Should look better. If you need any other help, let me know. Bgwhite (talk) 22:19, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Review of admin actions and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted in most arbitration pages please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.

Thanks OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 08:33, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Ganga Sagar (urn)

Hey Bgwhite. I just had a question about your revision on my page. . (WP:CHECKWIKI error fix for #61. Punctuation goes before References. Do general fixes if a problem exists. - using AWB (10839))

What does this mean? I am new to wiki and need help with technical language thus i apologize for the inconvenience. Also any other suggestions for my article? zzynat231 (talk)

I had the same technical message on the page I was editing. Just got curious. That's all.
Pennene11 (talk) 07:09, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

MAK

Do you have some special knowledge of Austrian Copyright law, or of the details of my recent edits, which makes you think that your actions in reverting substantial improvements to wikipedia was a good idea?

Basically, which specific sort of person are you who thinks reverting changes from a position of massive ignorance is a good idea? I am sorry to be hostile, but I am very annoyed that you would revert edits which the relevant instution approves of. You have no way of knowing that they approved of these edits, but at the same time, you have no way of knowing that they did not, and so, from my point of view your reversion was an act of simple ignorant vandalism.— Preceding unsigned comment added by RichGibson (talk • contribs) 07:00, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

RichGibson Thank you for telling me to fuck off and die in the edit summary at Museum of Applied Arts, Vienna. Wikipedia is based in the United States, thus is subject to US copyright law, but the EU follows the same law in this case. Unless there is written permission given, one cannot copy material and paste it into Wikipedia. See Wikipedia:Copyright violations. As no written permission has been given, the material cannot stay on the page. Also, being extremely rude and belligerent will get you nowhere. Leaving message like you did here, the edit summary and at PamD's talk page is not tolerable. Any further actions like that will lead to you being blocked. Bgwhite (talk) 07:34, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Were you also the person who reverted a link to an existing image?

I think that you should have tagged this page, not reverted my edits.

I further think that you are simply a pedantic jerk. Sorry. But your actions made wikipedia worse, and I am pretty sure that you violated wikipedia policy. There is no reasonable interpretation that makes linking to an existing wikipedia image a copyright violation, and so at least in that you were just freaking wrong.

BG19Bot did good

Your BG19Bot omitted a duplication I caused at Second Battle of Sabine Pass. Thanks! Wayne Roberson, Austin, Texas (talk) 18:58, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

WP:FIX

Hey, if you get a chance, could you run some more database dumps on WP:FIX? Thank you! Sct72 (talk) 20:15, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Sct72 Boy, it has been awhile. I'll start running some now. Bgwhite (talk) 20:26, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Haha, yep. I'm working on "in in" today, and "the the" still has plenty, but the other ones could probably use another hit. Thank you very much! Sct72 (talk) 20:38, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Tabor City

If you thought the Tabor City Prison section did not below, why not start its own page rather than delete it entirely. Seems heavy handed.

You get angry if someone uses a vulgar term, but did not respond to that above statement. If you lived and worked near this area, you would know how important the goings on of the prison are to the town. It is one of only two major employers left in the area. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.129.222.17 (talk) 22:50, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Because it is not my place to write up an article about a prison that I no nothing about. It is your call to write one or not. You got upset for me editing an article that I knew nothing about, but you want me to write one that I no nothing about? Also, what you had written in the city article had some POV issues about the prison. The person below used vulgar terms on several different pages and was blocked for them. Bgwhite (talk) 23:08, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

I do not work there, but I had contributed some of the news reports to the article about the prison. I did try to undo the edit you did removing the prison stuff and then use it as the basis for a new article, but I was told I am unable to undo the edit, even to use it as reference. There was a lot of information and citations you removed

Anyway, the removal of the entire article still seems a bit much. It left the article on the town as no mention of the prison, which seems unfair as it is both a major part of the town, (number of employees, etc) and one of the biggest prisons in the state. You may state "it is not my place to write up an article about a prison that I no nothing about." but you made it your business to remove an article about a prison and a town you know "nothing about" I am not trying to be combative, instead I am trying to understand the process as a new contributor, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.129.222.17 (talk) 00:21, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

The prison section was roughly equal that of the entire article on the town. The article is about the town, not the prison. Saying the prison is the largest employer and a few more sentences is just fine. But, when there are multiple sections on the prison, including sections about its construction, past wardens and scandals, it doesn't belong in an article about a town. I may not know about Tabor City, but I do know what should and shouldn't go into an article about a town. Bgwhite (talk) 02:15, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Apparently you knew every reference to the prison needed to be removed from the article — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.129.222.17 (talk) 23:18, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

BG19Bot

Can you please make sure that this bot does not do anything on United States v. Washington as long as the {{In use}} or {{Under construction}} tags are present? I am doing a major expansion of the article and the last thing I need to be doing is to be manually undoing its edits like this one in order to add additional references to a string-cite. Thanks. GregJackP Boomer! 01:51, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

GregJackP My bot does take into account {{in use}} tag per the (not required) recommendations. No bots take into account the {{under construction}} tag (UC) as it is not required nor recommended. The bot did edit the article when the (UC) tag was present. You didn't revert until 20 hours after the bot's edit and after you made over 20 edits. The tags are not meant to be up there for weeks just to simply avoid edit conflicts and for you only to edit. Don't know why you message left a message on the bot's talk page as it is plainly seen the bot doesn't run continually and hadn't run in 19 hours. Bgwhite (talk) 06:15, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
First, anyone can edit the article, and the {{Under construction}} tag clearly indicates that anyone can edit the article. It is also the recommended tag when not being directly edited, see {{In use}}. I didn't notice that the bot had done anything with the references until I went to add another reference to n.44 and n.46. Human editors would have noticed that this article is not using CS1 referencing or Harvard/MLA/Chicago, and if they had checked the talk page learned that the citation style is Bluebook. That style allows for string citations, a series of different references combined in one note. The BG19Bot's edits make creating string cites much more difficult.
Second, the intent is to take an article that needed a lot of work, and improve it to a featured article. To do that will take much more than just my edits to the article, so I anticipate that many additional editors will be involved. This is not a matter of ownership of an article, it is merely a matter of efficiency in developing the article. Correcting edits that BG19Bot has turned into named references takes time that would be better spent working on the article itself. When I create an article like this, I normally go through the references at the end of the writing process to create named refs, where needed.
Finally, I left a message on the bot's talk page because that is what the bot's user page said to do, in the last two sentences of the box at the center of the page ("To stop this bot until restarted by the bot's owner, edit its talk page. If that page is a redirect, edit that original redirecting page, not the target of the redirect."). I don't know anything about bots, nor do I care to know, so I did exactly what it told me to do. I came here to ask for your assistance with your bot, not because I felt you were intentionally doing anything to the article. If I should ask somewhere or someone else, let me know, and I'll be happy to do that. GregJackP Boomer! 06:56, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
GregJackP The bot did not change the refs to CS/Harvard/MLA/Chicago. It did not change the style at all. What it did do was named refs, ie WP:REFNAME. The bot will only do that if and only if another named ref is already present in the article. At the time of the edit, the article possessed a named ref (<ref name=link>{{cite web|title=Federal Judge ...). I just checked the article and it currently does not have a named ref. If the bot visits right now, it will not change any refs. Note: My bot is AWB based. Any AWB based bot will behave as my bot has behaved... in theory.
I just checked and the bot is scheduled to visit again. There is currently a broken bracket and punctuation after a ref (... the treaties.<ref>Blumm, at 435.</ref>> and (2005).</ref>. The evidence) Bgwhite (talk) 07:33, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, I fixed the typos. I also did not mean to infer that the bot changed the citation style, merely that CS1/Harvard/MLA/Chicago don't allow string cites, where Bluebook does. All I meant is that a Bluebook ref may look like this: Boldt decision, 384 F. Supp. at 343; Bean, at 457; Wilkinson, at 202; see generally Blumm, at 456. The same citation in CS1 would have four separate references, one each for the legal case, the two books, and the journal. What I do is add references to previous citations, as that allows me to use one source at a time and avoid WP:SYNTH or WP:OR. Again, thanks. GregJackP Boomer! 07:49, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Nondualism

Hi Bgwhite. Your fixes at Nondualism parinirvanated some chunks of text. Fortunately for us, mundane beings, they were reincarnated by re-adding a few brackets. Too many asides maybe, there... Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:52, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Tech News: 2015-18

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

Recent changes

  • All accounts are now unique and work on all wikis. [17] [18]
  • You can read a report from experts who tested the security of MediaWiki. [19]
  • There was a problem between VisualEditor and an antivirus software. It is now fixed. [20]
  • You can help test VisualEditor to see if it works in your language. [21]

Problems

  • Some Labs tools had problems due to a software bug. [22]

Changes this week

  • The new version of MediaWiki has been on test wikis and MediaWiki.org since April 22. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis from April 28. It will be on all Wikipedias from April 29 (calendar).
  • It is now clearer that you can delete several rows and columns when you edit tables in VisualEditor. [23]
  • You now see more information when you search for a template in VisualEditor. [24]
  • You can now cancel when you add citations on desktop, or edit links on mobile, in VisualEditor. [25]
  • You can now see the list of other formats for videos only after they're ready. [26]

Meetings

  • You can join the next weekly meeting with the Editing team. During the meeting, you can tell developers which bugs are the most important. The meeting will be on April 29 at 18:00 (UTC). See how to join.

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

15:10, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Drafts move

Hello B. Please move

- Thanks. --Captain Assassin! «T ♦ C ♦ G» 03:37, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Captain Assassin! Will do tomorrow. I'm going to bed right now. Bgwhite (talk) 09:43, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Thank you Bgwhite. It's already done by Czar. --Captain Assassin! «T ♦ C ♦ G» 16:13, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Review of admin actions

I was asked, as an arbitration committee clerk, to edit one of your headings to a less accusatory and more neutral wording and so I have done so. Liz Read! Talk! 14:23, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Bgwhite, what I neglected to say in the statement above is that you can revert this edit if you so choose. I have been corrected and I apologize if my words have had a negative effect, that wasn't my intention. Liz Read! Talk! 17:57, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 29 April

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) 00:23, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration Case

The arbitration case Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/OccultZone_and_Others has been opened. For the arbitration committee, Robert McClenon (talk) 17:41, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

You were recently listed as a party to a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/OccultZone and others. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/OccultZone and others/Evidence. Please add your evidence by May 15, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/OccultZone and others/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Robert McClenon (talk) 01:26, 1 May 2015 (UTC) Robert McClenon (talk) 01:26, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Donald Burgy

I'm not quite sure how to do this but i would like to understand what i can do to get donald burgy's page to stay up. you are asking for more references but there are many at the end of his page. what kind of references are you looking for exactly?? thank you. and where should I look for your response? I think i just fixed it - i removed the list of exhibtions. but then where would that info go? it is encyclopedic, no? Nita nomad (talk) 3 March 2015

?

Hello, Bgwhite. You have new messages at Hafspajen's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

You like exotic things, no?

List of people from Kumanovo

Well... allwrighty then! Talk

DDR case - table issue

@Bgwhite

How would you convert a table in HTML to an image? Particularly an SVG image? The only thing I can think of, and it seems like a terrible kludge, would be to print the HTML material that you deleted, scan it, and save as a jpg or gif. Do you have a better idea? I am totally unfamiliar with SVG files. How would you suggest adapting the table at the GW site to a form suitable for WP? PraeceptorIP (talk) 02:03, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

PraeceptorIP, I left a message for help at Wikipedia:SVG help#DDR Holdings v. Hotels.com. One of the main problems was reading the text. For something really weird, I'm unable to read the inner box on Chrome, but I can't read the outer box on Firefox. I can't read either on my small tablet at the default size. My kludge would do a screen type capture and import it into Inkscape. Hopefully some professionals will have the solution. Bgwhite (talk) 04:54, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Bg: Thanks for your comments. I found a free converter on the Internet that changes HTML to jpg. I then inserted the jpg. The next thing I knew, Jytdog deleted the whole section on how the invention works, with no explanation. Can you tell me what is going on here?

The problem with jpg, is that is doesn't scale well. If you decrease a photo by 1/2, it look ok. If you decrease text by half, it can be very hard to read.
PraeceptorIP The material was deleted with Original research given. Not saying I agree or disagree with the removal, but looking at the material, I can understand their point. Not knowing the thought process Jytdog used to deleted the material, I can only give a guess... First paragraph is well sourced and appears just fine. The rest isn't well sourced. The 2nd paragraph and quote isn't sourced at all. Wording such as "It has been suggested" and "It is not clear from" makes it sound like original research. The Computer Law 484 ref might not be the best to use as a ref. Goto to the refs used by the 484 class.
@Jytdog: Could you add your thoughts on what could improve the sections. Bgwhite (talk) 21:20, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for asking! I opened a discussion at the article Talk page - best to do it there. Jytdog (talk) 21:22, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

punctuation

Sorry Bgwhite. I think I made a mess. In the page on Size function I moved all punctuation after references. I do not really understand the policy by which it should stand before, but of course I adapt to it. I apologize... MassimoFerri (talk) 10:04, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

New Persondata RfC

Hi, I've created a draft RfC (here) for the methodical removal of {{Persondata}}. I was wondering if you could take a look at it and see if there's anything I need to change before I submit. I don't really know the RfC process... are there any templates I need to use? or any standard way of notifying the related WikiProjects? I've roughly based my draft on the last persondata RfC (that you submitted). Thanks, —Msmarmalade (talk) 00:43, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Msmarmalade
  1. I'm only aware of AWB based bots creating Persondata.
  2. Need to show where Wikidata is only interested in Short description... atleast I think that is the only one. Also, that they are done copying from persondata. Until wikidata says they are done, there will be objections.
  3. Waacstats is the primary person in adding Short description (>98%). Need to show they can do it on Wikidata.
  4. I'm unable to find that anyone uses persondata except what's his name that keeps popping up on this discussion. It's only a hobby for him. Need to stress if anybody knows anybody using persondata, please mention it.
  5. "Check data against Wikidata and remove methodically" There is no way of doing that. Have to show Wikidata has copied the fields they are interested in and then just delete.
Bgwhite (talk) 22:59, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
1. There's also the AfC process, and a couple of others that may not still be running. 2. Done. 3. I'm not sure why you mention Waacstats? I'll notify them of the RfC when I've posted. 4. If you mean Periglio? he has converted to WikiData. 5. This was suggested in the last RfC. Anyhow, I've tweaked the wording.
Thanks, —Msmarmalade (talk) 03:37, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Hi, I've posted the RfC now (here), thanks for your help. —Msmarmalade (talk) 07:39, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
Msmarmalade You have my sincerest sympathies and condolences for taking this on. :) Good luck. I didn't see your response from earlier. Waacstats has over a million edits and most of them come from editing the "short description" line in persondata. Periglio converted? Wow. What happened? Bgwhite (talk) 07:53, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Counting of the Omer

I made my edit specifically so that the text would incorporate the day's actual counting if the article is read during the period of the counting. Is there a problem with that? StevenJ81 (talk) 13:42, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

StevenJ81 Yes, the article now changes based upon the day. One has to add/remove this code every year. Changing "For example, on the 23rd day the count would be stated thus: "Today is twenty-three days, " does not any additional information. It makes the article much harder for people to edit. Bgwhite (talk) 21:39, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
I assumed that was your issue. Actually, one never has to change the code (other than to purge the cache), as the particular code I used places an example during the "non-counting interval", and only changes to use the actual count during the counting interval. But I'm not going to argue the point with you.
IMO, it is relevant to include the current count during the interval of the count. So I will ask you to look at this template: User:StevenJ81/sandbox/Box. This template returns the box you see there during the interval of the count, and simply disappears during the rest of the year. I would propose to move the template into Template namespace, and then insert it at Counting of the Omer#The count beneath the two sound clips on the right hand side of the page. I appreciate that the template, at least, would need to increment each day during the 49 days of the counting interval. And I appreciate that as a rule we don't want mainspace articles to need to change every day. At the same time, this type of information is reasonable in any article related to a calendar, and one advantage of a WP:NOTPAPER encyclopedia is that one can provide this type of information relatively easily.
Thank you for your consideration. StevenJ81 (talk) 22:00, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

H3 tags in New York City Police Department

Hi Bgwhite. I noticed that you reverted an edit of mine to that article because it used h3 tags instead of three equal signs. However, I used the h3 tags intentionally so that the [edit] links don't appear near these sections, but these subsections would still appear in the table of contents. I removed the edit links because otherwise, editing part of the table would be awkward. Thanks, Epic Genius (talk) 12:31, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Epicgenius Personally, I don't see the point where every other row in a table needs to be a section heading. There only needs to be one section header and that is right before the table. Bgwhite (talk) 21:42, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
I have mended that problem by making them into regular rows with gray background instead. Epic Genius (talk) 00:08, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

wataru43

Good day Bgwhite, i notice that you deleted my page about Jerry Navarro Elizalde. can i ask you if i can get back my article about jerry elizalde navarro. im still new here in wikipedia. and this is for my school project. thank you. sorry for the bad english — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wataru43 (talk • contribs) 14:18, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Wataru43 It wasn't deleted. It was moved to Draft:Jerry Navarro Elizalde‎. Bgwhite (talk) 17:16, 7 May 2015 (UTC) thank you so much.

AWB blues

I've started a discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)/Archive 49#AWB blues about the AWB problems and the reverting, in the hope we can get something sorted out. Sarah (SV) (talk) 22:19, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

BG19bot did bad

Hey Bgwhite,

Is that Big white Shark by the way?

and

I'm an editor on Socrates, you'd be interested to know having viewed your User page (I'm thinking serendipitous we should cross paths)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socratic_problem#Suggested_solutions is one of my edits Whalestate (talk) 00:19, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

In any case, to get to the issue I've actually messaged for, which is, bot 19 reverted an edit giving the reason - Violates WP:MOSHEAD - 03:18, 8 May 2015 in The Anabasis of Alexander, but in doing so rendering the titling some-what meaningless, or at least not apparently having much meaning in my own opinion, so, I'd have to revert the poor bot, but for thinking it would proceed to begin a war! and I wouldn't win obvs.... not sure how to resolve this conflict, other than to suggest maybe you might allow the previous titling? making an exception in this case... or at least tell me how the reasoning is specifically applicable to the titling I chose. Thanks. Whalestate (talk) 00:12, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

how does a person award another user barn stars by the way? Whalestate (talk) 00:14, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Whalestate Fixed, I think. Section headings shouldn't start with just one = (level 1) section heading. Main reason is for the blind, see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility#Headings. So, I redid the section headings. Wikipedia:Barnstars gives help on barnstars. Bgwhite (talk)
O.k. thanks Bgwhite Whalestate (talk) 00:59, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Removing duplicate arguments

could you restrict this change to args that do not end in numbers? this is the restriction that was placed on SporkBot. it's easier to clean up if all the first/last pairs are still there. thank you. Frietjes (talk) 13:23, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Frietjes, I'm confused. Could you point out the exact ones you are talking about? Bgwhite (talk) 21:18, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
for example, you removed "first6=R." from more than one citation. Frietjes (talk) 12:25, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
Frietjes. This would be an AWB issue... Oh Magioladitis. Also, I'm not entirely sure why removing duplicate args is a problem. Could you elaborate so I can understand. As you are more knowledgeable than me on this, I'll defer to your judgement. Bgwhite (talk) 21:53, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

I think AWB only renames some parameters. I do not recall AWB removing duplicated parameters. GoingBatty knows better. -- Magioladitis (talk) 21:56, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

@Magioladitis: Yes, AWB's general fixes to Fix Citation Templates states that it "removes duplicated fields". I copied the citation template in question to Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/Sandbox and confirmed that AWB's general fixes makes that change. I think that Frietjes is stating that it's easier to fix the problem with the authors if AWB doesn't remove part of the incorrect information. For example, maybe the proper manual fix would be to change 
|last6=Svitak |first6=R. |last6=Pradl |first6=R. |last7=Stepan |first7=M.
to 
|last6=Svitak |first6=R. |last7=Pradl |first7=R. |last8=Stepan |first8=M.
Removing a duplicate |language= or |title= field is helpful, but when AWB removes the second |first6= parameter, the citation still has something that has to be manually fixed. Frietjes' suggestion sounds reasonable to me. Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 01:36, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Rjwilmsi might find this discussion interesting. -- Magioladitis (talk) 05:48, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

GoingBatty can you please fill out a report for this at WP:AWB/B. -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:29, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

@Magioladitis and GoingBatty: the assessment of the problem is correct. the best solution would be to check if these appear as pairs, then only remove duplicates if they are duplicate pairs. however, this may be more difficult than simply avoiding args that end in numbers. note that the first/last and editor-first/editor-last pairs are the only the only problematic ones in citation templates. in templates in general, you have to watch out for score1/score2, lat/long, subdivision_name1/subdivision_type1, ... see Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/SporkBot 5 for related discussion. Frietjes (talk) 14:39, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
@Magioladitis and Frietjes: See Wikipedia talk:AutoWikiBrowser/Bugs#Removing duplicate arguments not appropriate for numbered parameters. GoingBatty (talk) 00:16, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Change restricted. -- Magioladitis (talk) 07:25, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Montreal: Climate

Hey there, I'm just wondering why my edits to the climate portion of the article keep getting reverted. I updated the stats from the Environment Canada page so that it would reflect their most recent data and not the significantly outdated data from the older version of the article. I get that I'm not a registered user, so it might look fishy, but is there anything else I may have done wrong to cause my edits to continually be reverted? Cheers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.163.137.191 (talk) 14:49, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

184.163.137.191 Yea, it certainly needed to be update. Revert my edit and...
  1. Fix the ref you gave. It's giving off an error and not being displayed.
  2. No need to add the chill and humidex charts. Hardly anyone understands humidex and low wind chill is sort of a fake number.
Well, atleast I'll never visit Montreal in November or December. Max wind chill happens everyday where I live, because my wife yells at me everyday :) Bgwhite (talk) 21:04, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the info and for the help! I've made the changes as you've suggested and fixed the ref. Also, hah! January and February are far worse though, not matter how much your wife is yelling. :P — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.163.137.191 (talk) 16:14, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Gošince attack copy & paste etc

Per this move log, you moved this page to the 'correct' Gosince attack spelling, but someone has apparently copy/pasted it back to Gošince attack. See here. The editor had already been advised of this by another editor, here and I have added my agreement to their comment. To complicate things however, the talkpage is still at Talk:Gosince attack.

Only contacting you since you are involved. Sorry if I'm short circuiting normal procedures!

N.b. Editor seems to be making a fair number of page moves lately! Move log - 220 of Borg 04:33, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

220 of Borg No problem in contacting me here. The moving was worse as it involves two people and copy/pasting. I left a message on Zoupan's talk page for all three of you.
You didn't answer my question from the other day... What is your full designation? Bgwhite (talk) 05:04, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Requesting help

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bgwhite/Archive_42&oldid=1142889163"