Jump to content

User talk:Bgwhite/Archive 57

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 50←Archive 55Archive 56Archive 57Archive 58Archive 59Archive 60

Life Time

A life time of thanking you wouldn't still be enough, sure, I have suspended my first article until I can find suitable reference, my second article though, is okay. I will be putting out a third article today, showing that no one can silence me for personal reasons. If anytime anybody wants to open an SPI on me . I would be fully cooperative because my hands are clean & I am without secrets. Do have a nice day ahead sir Celestina007 (talk) 10:52, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Assistance with Your Message Regarding User Name and with Previously requested edits for accuracy

Hello, I am writing to respectfully request assistance regarding your message that our user name is in violation of the standards. I have reviewed the policy and do not see where we are in violation. The policy seems to state that organizational names are only in violation when they are ambiguous or misrepresent an authority within that organization. Our user name does neither, and we believe we have complied with the policies as stated.

Additionally, changing our user name will wipe out our requested edits. These edits are imperative as they clear up ambiguities presented on Wikipedia between our organization and another of a similar name The history and facts of the two similarly named organizations are well documented in the media, including a Vice News episode which aired last night (Tuesday, November 1, 2016) on HBO. The trailer for that episode can be viewed here and is quite representative of the facts with regards to the separate organizations: http://motherboard.vice.com/read/how-anonymous-and-other-hacktivists-fight-isis-online

We are sure that Wikipedia and it's editors desire nothing more than the utmost truth and accuracy in presenting information to the public, and we merely desire to do the same. In regards to the username, we are more than happy to change that if it is necessary, however we would request that these edits be made as soon as possible, before our connection to them is broken.

We appreciate any assistance you can provide. Thank you. BLACKOPS Cyber (Formerly Ghost Security) Public Relations Team

Previously Requested Edits: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:51, 22 October 2016 (UTC) == https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Rosiestep&oldid=745683582

Misrepresented Group and Title And Deleted edits to Correct Misrepresentation == Please change the title of the page > https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Ghost_Security AS noted in the news article cited as a reference on this page: http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/hackers-replace-dark-web-isis-propaganda-site-advert-prozac-1530385 "Ghost Sec, a faction of the hacktivist collective Anonymous (unaffiliated with the counter-terrorism organisation Ghost Security Group), targeted the Isdarat website after it appeared on the Tor anonymity network last week." Ghost Security Group uses this as a reference on the page, though the article clearly states that the two groups are not affiliated, they delete any edits that we attempt to make to the page with the assistance of Wikipedia Editor https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/User:Senator2029 Their own reference shows the error in the information on this page.

In addition, they have done the same with the user page/redirect at: https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/GhostSec Additional sources were posted on these pages to prove the validity of the disambiguation between GhostSec (established 2014) and Ghost Security Group (established November 2015). Ghost Security Group additionally post dated their official press release regarding their establishment to attempt to make their sources seem valid. source references from November of 2016 refer to Ghost Security and not Ghost Security Group.

Additional Sources: https://mic.com/articles/129679/anonymous-vs-isis-how-ghostsec-and-ghost-security-group-are-targeting-terrorists#.3wXtznVRR After DigitaShadow and Mikro created Ghost Security Group, two anons who go by the names Wauchula and TorReaper split off. They saw the Group as all about fame and "money," even if there is no proven arrangement for Smith or any members of the federal government to pay members of the Group. TorReaper got the original site back up and running, they took on the old name of GhostSec and rebuilt it as an Anonymous-affiliated group. Ghost Security has now merged with BLACKOPS, a reputable cyber intelligence and security firm based in San Francisco, CA. While this ambiguation may have been a minor issue in the past, it has become a corporate reputation management issue, and should not be taken lightly. We respectfully request that you resolve this disambiguation, change the title of the existing page to Ghost Security Group (which is accurate) and remove references pertaining to Ghost Security. Those References are: http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/10/anonymous-activists-isis-twitter/409312/ http://www.ibtimes.com/ghost-security-hackers-offshoot-anonymous-claim-they-disrupted-isis-attack-2077993

Additional evidence of facts: http://motherboard.vice.com/read/how-anonymous-and-other-hacktivists-fight-isis-online Our organization desires to have our own Wiki Page, which is not possible without removing the conflict of references and titles. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ghost Security BOC (talk • contribs) 16:52, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Are my impressing you yet ? :)

I moved my 2nd project titled "Charles Awurum" to live space I think it's an improvement from initial projects. Have a look at it maybe ? Thank you so much. Celestina007 (talk) 17:13, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

I need your wisdom sir

The website format is proving stubborn for me to comprehend if you Could have pity on me and look into my reference section of Draft Kansi The Rocket you would observe it starts with figures then follows with proper referencing. More so when i try to open [ External Link sub ] my refrence just falls in there automatically. I can't seem to comprehend this. my other articles on Bobrisky and Charles Awurum have sailed through please do help with hurdle . Thank you Celestina007 (talk) 21:07, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Intro

Title sequences are also referred to as an "intro", that's another term for a title sequence, it's been in the "see also" section the whole time, and while I was signed out, I moved it in the top section, to make it more visible. If people are looking for it, they won't find it. Zhyboo (talk) 15:43, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Zhyboo First, thank you for leaving me a note. One major thing you did wrong... Per my initial edit summary, no text can be between the TOC and section heading. This is an accessibility issue. I didn't see you moving it up from See Also. People arrive there looking for the terms of "intro". Only the primary topic and very common variations of Intro go first. Title sequences does not follow this, synonyms do not qualify, and generally go into the body. This is such a bad disambig page with all the music related stuff... Everything, not music goes, at the top. Grrrr. Either organize it better or put title sequence at the top, above the TOC. Bgwhite (talk) 17:56, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 4 November

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) 00:19, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Gym

I fixed my reference, I assure you their not fake. I am doing this for a class so if you could wait till after December to delete my work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dominiquejrivera (talk • contribs) 00:26, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Dominiquejrivera, please read Wikipedia:Education program/Students and Wikipedia:Training/For students. Your instructor should have pointed you to those pages already. Your contributions are visible to and editable by everyone in the world with internet access, so hoping that they will remain intact until December is not a reasonable expectation. So far, it looks like you are adding prose with valid citations, but don't be surprised if your edits are changed, challenged, or removed. That's how Wikipedia works. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:18, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

re Ismail_Hakki_Bursevi, I understand that using a Wikipedia page as an external link is against the rules, however the page is on Turkish Wikipedia: tr.wikipedia.org not wiki.riteme.site. I found it would not function as an internal link.Can you tell me if there is a way to internal link between different-language-wikipedias? Kildwyke (talk) 17:11, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

  • Oh sorry I just found it on Help:Interwikimedia_links  : language code:Title Kildwyke (talk)
    • Kildwyke The main problem was you using Wikipedia as a reference. No matter what Wikipedia site one uses, it's still unreliable and cannot be used as a ref. The second problem was under the see also section. There was a link to the article on Turkish Wikipedia. This is not needed. These links are handled by Wikidata, see Bursevi's entry. These language links show up on the left-side bar, at the bottom. Bgwhite (talk) 18:15, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Please have a look at

Hello Bgwhite, there is since three days an IP that makes many edits, first the pronounciation of the name of towns and second the twin cities. He also made edits about the pronounciation of towns in South -Germany, some were ok, some were wrong. I reverted the wrong ones, but I can't evaluate the other edits. One example is Vaslui. Regards--Buchbibliothek (talk) 09:01, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Buchbibliothek I'm not exactly sure. The twin cities edits are useless and not needed. What is the percentage of errors you think they are making? What are some articles with errors? I'll leave them a note and see what they say. Bgwhite (talk) 09:16, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
I see you already left a message. Let's see what they do. If they ignore the message, then we have a big problem. Bgwhite (talk) 09:19, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Adding text from another Wikipedia article

If I use text from another Wikipedia page, do I add for instance

This article uses material from the Wikipedia article Gemstones, which is released under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License (view authors). Wikipedia logo

to the end of the article, or what do I do?

XSAMPA (talk) 16:12, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

XSAMPA It depends on how much you are copying. If it's a paragraph or two, add in your edit summary where you copied it from... copied content from Gemstones. If it is any longer, use the {{copied}} template on the article's talk page and the source's talk page, along with the edit summary. Bgwhite (talk) 20:33, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
The best place is to add your attribution as a comment in the page history, which is a permanent source and can (basically) never be removed. (I would suggest that you add the URL to the specific revision of the page from which you copied content.) No such guarantee is provided for talk page templates or article pages. --Izno (talk) 22:59, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Question

Hello Bgwhite, is it possible, to limit the number of my edits to 35 a day in enwiki? Every day i edit more than i want. If it is possible, please do so. Regards--Buchbibliothek (talk) 22:39, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Buchbibliothek Nope. It's like beer... you are responsible for how many you drink. My solution is my wife. She's given me a window when I can or can't edit. It's ends up to be very painful when I'm on Wikipedia when I shouldn't be. Bgwhite (talk) 06:45, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for the answer. Is it possible to block a user for x days on his own wish? If it is possible, so please block me for 3 days. It is like addiction. Thanks and kind regards--Buchbibliothek (talk) 13:24, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
Buchbibliothek, if Bgwite prefers not to do this, please see Category:Wikipedia administrators willing to consider placing self-requested blocks. You may also check out the WikiBreak Enforcer script. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 19:41, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
Mandarax I don't recall seeing the Enforcer script before. Sometimes I go on a wikibreak to calm down and the script would be helpful. Buchbibliothek, if you want, I can block you. I'm usually online ~6:00AM - ~11:00AM CEST. Bgwhite (talk) 20:45, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
Of course, the true addict could simply disable javascript in their browser. Thanks, Redrose64, for removing my erroneous '''Bold text'''. I'm doing this on an iPad, and it's nearly litterally impossible to do anything without making some kind of mistake. I usually manage to catch them before saving, but the occasional one slips through. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 23:19, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
Hello Bgwhite, please block me for 3 days. Thank you.--Buchbibliothek (talk) 08:25, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi bgwhite this Hammed Adesope I noticed you're the admin to my profile.... There are some errors I would like you to correct....like the date of birth. It's supposed to be 22 October 1990....please reply ASAP e-mail is spehammed2210@gmail.com Adesope (talk) 11:20, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

I would also like to attach my poc to my profile thanks Adesope (talk) 11:21, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

The date is incorrect remember it is MY profile the date is supposed to be 22october 1990....I may even scan my passport page to you....so please sir...that's what I want Adesope (talk) 20:05, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

My e-mail is sopehammed2210@gmail.com Adesope (talk) 20:08, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Notes & References

Hi, you recently carried out and edit to Appleby (UK Parliament constituency) that merged a list of notes with a list of references. I don't think that improved the article as I think it helps to have them listed apart. Given the content of the Notes, I also think it helps the reader to have them listed at that particular place in the article rather than at the end. I don't know the correct way to list Notes separate from References but have seen it done in some articles. Can you please advise? Graemp (talk) 12:32, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Graemp In order to have "notes" goto one spot and "references" to another spot, you need to use groups. See WP:REFGROUP for instructions. Bgwhite (talk) 18:44, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
Graemp No matter where the references occur, they go at the bottom of the page under references. Only notes can go below a table. The "History of Parliament" are references, not notes. Also, don't revert a bigger edit when all you had to do was to type ~20 characters in. That just causes the other person alot more work. Bgwhite (talk) 07:12, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
There you go. Notes below the table; refs at the bottom. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:34, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Pryor

Hi BGWhite, you recently deleted the Representative Opinions section from the Wikipedia page for William H. Pryor Jr. Pryor is a federal judge, and the most important part of a judge's page is how they decide cases. You can't know much about a jurist without examples of the decisions they have made. And without Wikipedia, that information is difficult to acquire for non-lawyers who do not have access to expensive legal databases like Westlaw or Lexis. Even then, it is impossible to review all of the cases, identify the most important ones, and provide brief summaries of the facts and conclusions. The Wikipedia pages for other judges often have sections listing their most notable opinions (e.g., Samuel Alito, Antonio Carpio, Robert S. Smith, Renato Corona, Alex Kozinski, Edith Brown Clement). Pryor's page had contained such a section since October 2008, with no complaints. Would you consider restoring this section of the page? If not, do you have recommendations for what it would take to restore the section? Thank you for your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:141:201:4E1C:E4B7:E83E:7526:81F6 (talk) 14:09, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

2601:141:201:4E1C:E4B7:E83E:7526:81F6 There are some huge differences between what you had and all the examples you gave: Pryor had 50 opinions and the examples had 10 or under, you are comparing Supreme Court Justices to Pryor and many of the cases you listed are not "notable". Before you arrived, the article had 12 opinions, each opinion had links and had more information about the cases. Wikipedia is not a directory. Encyclopedias are summaries about topics, not a comprehensive list. I've restored the opinions section with material that was there before. Bgwhite (talk) 19:46, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
I see your point. Thank you for the edit. I have one more question. Why did you delete the section discussing Pryor's appointment and tenure on the United States Sentencing Commission? That is a separate government office that he holds, and the section about it was short, informative, and did not read like a list or a CV. The same is true of the section about his Family life. Did you accidentally delete these sections in the process of deleting the Representative Opinions and the Published Works sections? Would you consider restoring them? They have been on the Pryor profile for years. Thank you again for your time.12.26.170.179 (talk) 15:03, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
2601:141:201:4E1C:E4B7:E83E:7526:81F6 I did accidentally delete it. It was between the two list sections and I didn't notice it. I've restored it. Thank you for bringing it to my attention. Bgwhite (talk) 19:09, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Two-Factor Authentication now available for admins

Hello,

Please note that TOTP based two-factor authentication is now available for all administrators. In light of the recent compromised accounts, you are encouraged to add this additional layer of security to your account. It may be enabled on your preferences page in the "User profile" tab under the "Basic information" section. For basic instructions on how to enable two-factor authentication, please see the developing help page for additional information. Important: Be sure to record the two-factor authentication key and the single use keys. If you lose your two factor authentication and do not have the keys, it's possible that your account will not be recoverable. Furthermore, you are encouraged to utilize a unique password and two-factor authentication for the email account associated with your Wikimedia account. This measure will assist in safeguarding your account from malicious password resets. Comments, questions, and concerns may be directed to the thread on the administrators' noticeboard. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:32, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello

I just wanted to drop you a note to let you know that you are banned from posting comments on my talk page, unless, of course, you are required to by Wikipedia policy. If you are required to post a notice on my talk page, please clearly indicate in the edit summary what policy you are doing so under. Any other posted comments will be deleted without being read.

Please note that this ban also applies to pinging me. Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:17, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Beyond My Ken, please link to the discussion at ANI or wherever that established this one-way interaction ban. If there was no discussion, please retract the above, per the English Wikipedia's banning policy, which states that "individual editors, including administrators, may not directly impose bans." Thanks. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:21, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
Beyond My Ken responded on my talk page, confusingly. I will keep the discussion here. Beyond My Ken claims that any Wikipedia editor may effectively "ban" other editors from posting on their talk page simply by making the request not to post there. That may be the case, but if you read what is written above, it is not a request. It is a statement that Bgwhite is "banned from posting comments on my talk page". I asked for confirmation that a ban has been imposed in accordance with en.WP's banning policy (linked above). That confirmation has not appeared yet. Beyond My Ken: Please post a link to the discussion that resulted in the alleged ban, or retract and rephrase the above statement as a request. Thanks. (Bgwhite, if I am out of line here, you are welcome to delete my comments or this whole section, and I will spend my energy elsewhere.) – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:07, 14 November 2016 (UTC)index.php
Jonesey95 At the bottom of here is what BMK put on his talk page and directly mentioned my name (and my reply). BMK then put this on my talk page claiming I'm harrasing him. I then left my reply on his talk page. That was the first time I've ever left a message on his talkpage. BMK has left atleast six talk discussions on mine. We've had one other on an article's talk page, after BMK left a message here. Our interactions have all started when BMK left messages here. Bgwhite (talk) 00:54, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
None of that looks like reasonable behavior on BMK's part. BMK has now left a message on my talk page instead of simply answering my question here. I am pretty sure that there was no discussion about a ban, and for all of BMK's talk about policy and guidelines, that editor's statements seem to contradict the banning policy quite clearly. Anyway, I think it is probably best to just leave it alone. Argue with someone like that long enough, and you end up covered in whatever they have on them. Better to spend the evening with your mother-in-law (who says hi, by the way). – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:57, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Isham Park

Twice now, the BG19bot has changed numbering in a direct quote (i.e. changing "June 15th" to "June 15") in this article. Direct quotes, of course, should not be altered in this manner. I have added "bots|deny=BG19bot" to the article, but wanted to make you aware of the problem as well. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:13, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken Could you please stop using {{bots}} as a blunt instrument and follow the instructions for a change. Banning my bot is of no good as other bots do the same thing.
  1. For longer quotes like these, MOS states a block quotation should be used.
  2. An advantage of using one of the quote tags or templates is that bots will not change spelling or change 15th -> 15.
  3. The <poem> tag is usually used instead of <br>. It creates a cleaner look that is easier to read, but this is a personal preference. A downside is any bold or italic formatting must be applied to each line.
  4. For short segments that have 15th, use {{notatypo}}. This keeps the bots away and stops editors from changing it.
Bgwhite (talk) 23:58, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
Please accept your responsibility for this problem and do not try to shift the blame to me. Since you're making the changes through your bot, it's your responsibility to make sure your bot behaves correctly, not mine. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:40, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
Beyond My Ken Back to you shouting and bullying. I'm not going to be bullied by you again. The bot IS behaving correctly. I'm saying to follow MOS:BLOCKQUOTE and instructions at {{bots}} just like everybody else. Saying you own what you write and only you can edit it is ownership. It's your problem that you refuse to follow MOS. It's your problem if you ignore how all bots go around this. You've tried to get and have gotten editors blocked for not following rules, MOS and non-MOS rules... hmmm. I left a message at Talk:Isham Park. Bgwhite (talk) 08:22, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
Obviously, I disagree with you in every particular. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:10, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

The discussion was continued at Talk:Isham Park.

BMK left a message at his talk page to come here and see how evil I am. This was my reply to BMK, but he erased it. A couple discussions below, BMK banned me from his talk page.Bgwhite (talk) 05:07, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Let's enjoy our last three encounters and see if there is a pattern. Oh, I never said MOS was mandatory. I said to be used with common sense with occational exceptions.
  1. Blank lines in lists. This was done per Accessibility MOS (WP:LISTGAP) and went thru bot approval. Yet, you attacked me and best yet, you said it was more important for you to read the code rather than the blind to read the article. When other people chimed in, you still complained.
  2. Moving TOC. This was done per MOS (WP:TOC) and has been done ever since Graham87, the resident accessibility expert asked me. If the TOC is not in the right spot, anything after it becomes "invisible" to screen users. What was your response? Attack and say MOS isn't mandatory. You wanted blind people to not be able to "read" the entire article. We also went thru this before.
  3. On Isham Park you didn't want to add <blockquote>. You never said why you didn't want it. It does stop ALL bots from doing the same thing. You did more attacks and only wanted to stop my bot.
You, today asked me to stop harrasing you on my talk page. How am I harassing you?
Now this tirade. Who keeps harassing who? Who keeps attacking who? You are the one saying one doesn't have to follow MOS even if the blind won't be able to read the entire article. Common sense says accessibiity of millions is more important than you wanting blank lines or a TOC moved. Common sense says to use blockquotes so all bots keep away, is proper HTML and does nothing to the looks of the page. Bgwhite (talk) 06:53, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Northern Ndebele people

Hi Bgwhite. Thanks for this. However, I am reverting the article back to before Taramandu's inclusion of a section on the language, as an full article exists on the Northers Ndebele language, with links fom the lede and from the inbox. Thanks for your cooperation, regards. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 11:32, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

A new user right for New Page Patrollers

Hi Bgwhite.

A new user group, New Page Reviewer, has been created in a move to greatly improve the standard of new page patrolling. The user right can be granted by any admin at PERM. It is highly recommended that admins look beyond the simple numerical threshold and satisfy themselves that the candidates have the required skills of communication and an advanced knowledge of notability and deletion. Admins are automatically included in this user right.

It is anticipated that this user right will significantly reduce the work load of admins who patrol the performance of the patrollers. However,due to the complexity of the rollout, some rights may have been accorded that may later need to be withdrawn, so some help will still be needed to some extent when discovering wrongly applied deletion tags or inappropriate pages that escape the attention of less experienced reviewers, and above all, hasty and bitey tagging for maintenance. User warnings are available here but very often a friendly custom message works best.

If you have any questions about this user right, don't hesitate to join us at WT:NPR. (Sent to all admins).MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:47, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Tech News: 2016-46

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

  • When you edit with the visual editor you can use meta + shift + k to add a reference. The meta key is often the control key or command key. [1]

Changes this week

  • The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from November 15. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from November 16. It will be on all wikis from November 17 (calendar).
  • In Special:Preferences you can choose which language menus and buttons will be in. If there is no translation for that language, MediaWiki has a list of fallback languages. A fallback language is a language many will understand better than English. MediaWiki will now use English when there is no Ukrainian translation. [2]

Meetings

  • You can join the next meeting with the VisualEditor team. During the meeting, you can tell developers which bugs you think are the most important. The meeting will be on 15 November at 19:00 (UTC). See how to join.

Future changes

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

19:17, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

I wanted to make sure that last item caught your eye. mw:Help:Magic links shows the likely future approach to ISBNs, PMIDs, and RFCs. mw:Requests for comment/Future of magic links is probably the best centralized page for questions. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 19:47, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Bug report

BG19bot erroneously removed ref tags here (maybe they could be coded more elegantly though). Cheers. Materialscientist (talk) 07:46, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Materialscientist The program is WPCleaner and bug reports should be reported there. It didn't remove <ref> tags but instead removed <span> tags. I reported the bug this past week (another person did too) via email along with a few other minor bugs. Tomorrow, I'll see if a new version is available before starting up with the program again. Bgwhite (talk) 08:02, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Reserved powers

I am trying to understand the BG19bot edit in Reserved powers doctrine#composition of the court - the summary "Punctuation goes before References" does not explain the change to the order of 2 references. Tradition in citing legal cases is to put the earliest case first, hence my order "D'Emden"(24 February 1904) "Railway servants" (17 December 1906) "Barger" (26 June 1908) "Union label" (8 August 1908) & "Huddart" (7 June 1909). I thought it might be an attempt to keep the reference numbers in order, but before the bot edit it was 6, 15, 12, 10, 9 & after 6, 15, 12, 9, 10. If I can understand the error you are trying to fix, it will help me see if I can prevent it while keeping the cases in date order. Cheers Find bruce (talk) 07:58, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Find bruce There's like ten different traditions for legal cases around here. One has no named refs. Another has most important ref first... The edit summary also states, "Do general fixes if a problem exists". Reordering refs is part of general fixes. It didn't reorder everything as it doesn't treat {{r}} as a ref. In theory, if one puts comment tags in between the refs, the program won't reorder. I just tested it and worked. Bgwhite (talk) 08:17, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for taking the time to explain. References in numerical order does look neater & I am happy to work on that basis - I just couldn't understand why the bot picked up some & not others. You make a good point about different traditions, especially since I have used at least 3 different footnote styles in that article. Still trying to find the right balance. The sfn template works well for books, but I am not convinced it is the best way for referring to different pages of a case. Find bruce (talk) 09:07, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
Find bruce You are doing better than most. I hate the refs that say "64 F. Supp. 54 (1946)". I don't know what this means. I'm not a Lawyer. Lawyers outside the U.S. might not know. Yours is understandable and with links. Bgwhite (talk) 09:18, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) FYI to Find bruce, if you have an opinion on the numerical reference ordering, this talk page discussion may interest you. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:52, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Question - Content written link an advertisement - AppsFlyer

Hi - I am trying to update the AppsFlyer page and noticed that you marked it as written like an advertisement. Can you please refer me to a specific section that I could re-write. Rachel123s (talk) 11:26, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Rachel123s I haven't edited the page, but it looks like MrOllie added the advertisement tag. The "Technology" section has the problems. The AppsFlyer has the following features to help support advertisers' decision-making: sentence can be seen as advertising as it talks too much about the product. It can also be re-worded. Contacting MrOllie would be the best routed to take. Bgwhite (talk) 20:24, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Checkwiki rule

You've twice removed a search link from Green ghost (disambiguation) using AWB, quoting WP:CHECKWIKI rule 90. I explained in an edit summary you were misinterpreting this, but you removed it again the next day with a canned edit summary. Rule 90 is about replacing links that are formatted as external links with wikilinks, but that's not relevant. You're removing a search link that is useful for a disambig page. Please don't remove it again. Fences&Windows 18:07, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

It would seem to me that such a link is imminently self-referential, and if this is indeed a thing valuable to this disambiguation page, it should be added to all disambiguation pages--perhaps as part of {{disambig}}. Why do you think this page needs this exceptional link (regardless of CHECKWIKI)? --Izno (talk) 18:26, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 19 November

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) 00:21, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

More AWB problems

Please DON'T set your AWB to replace ".co.uk" with ".com" in google urls (or, I would suggest, any others). This may well lead to the expected page not being reachable. Johnbod (talk) 05:19, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Johnbod Using .com is the correct way. The .com address leads to the default address for the language/country the reader is in. Instead of going to a Spanish, Hungarian or Japanese Google site, the reader goes to their own language. If you are in the UK, the .com address automatically goes to the .co.uk address. The book id is the same on any Google book site. There are no unexpected pages unless you are calling Google a liar about their own site. I will not change. Bgwhite (talk) 05:27, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
This is not true, as publishers allow different sets of pages to be seen on google preview depending on the market it is viewed from. Johnbod (talk) 05:31, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
Johnbod Again not true. Example... I'm coming from a non-UK web address and the preview is only available on the UK site. I still will not see the preview. The license Google has is IP based. The same goes for YouTube, Netflix, Amazon and any other major website. This is why people use VPN services to bypass the restrictions. This is why you see "This video is not available in your country" when you visit some Youtube sites. Bgwhite (talk) 05:40, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
Johnbod From Google, Google Books respects copyright, contract, and other legal restrictions associated with the end user's location. As a result, some users might not be able to access book content from certain countries. For example, certain books are "previewable" only in the United States; we omit such preview links for users in other countries. Therefore, the API results are restricted based on your server or client application's IP address. Bgwhite (talk) 06:13, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
@Johnbod: You may be interested in WP:VPI#Changing google.xxx links to google.com. --Izno (talk) 12:51, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you! ツ

The Guidance Barnstar
Dear Bgwhite,

Thank you very much, once again, for the kind and patient assistance you extended to me personally. Thank you also for your contributions to our encyclopedia, and for all that you do in support of your fellow editors.
With kind regards;
Patrick. ツ Pdebee.(talk)(guestbook) 02:31, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Your edits to Vladislav Surkov

https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Vladislav_Surkov&oldid=750678950 and https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Vladislav_Surkov&oldid=750678950 . I don't understand why you did this. I was linking to pages within the Template:Lang-ru template to Russian Wikipedia for pages that don't exist on English Wikipedia. I was not using Wikipedia as a reference. Is there some way to do this that won't be caught up in the robot you use to edit Wikipedia ("AWB") ? Or if this is really disallowed can u explain why? Thanks --Psiĥedelisto (talk) 01:11, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Psiĥedelisto As my edit summary states, one doesn't use Wikipedia as an external link. This is what wikilinks are for. I wasn't sure what you were doing on the article. As an example on what to do:
''Close to Zero'' ({{Lang-ru|«[https://ru.wikipedia.org/Околоноля Околоноля]»}})
Should be written as:
''[[:ru:Околоноля Околоноля:Close to Zero]]'' ({{lang|ru|Околоноля Околоноля}})
This way, the book's name is now a wikilink. You should probably use {{lang|ru|...}} template instead. The first time Russian is used or if it's used at the top and away down the page, {{lang-ru}} is correct. As the reader now knows the "funny" lettering is Russian, any use of {{lang-ru}} becomes redundant. But keep doing the {{lang|ru|...}}. This helps computers and blind readers know what language is being used and pronounces it correctly. Bgwhite (talk) 05:27, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Help on issueing warning to IP User?

Hi Bgwhite,

I have a issue with the policy to warn before requesting block.

I need to send warning messages to a user that is found vandalising articles (user is 137.132.190.171) Can you guide me on how to issue warning for IP address user? It seems to be that directing messages to ip address will not work like that to registered accounts.

Thanks in advance! :)

Lyg 2001 (talk) 06:50, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Lyg 2001 I don't see any vandalism, but then I don't know the articles. You have two options:
  1. Enable Twinkle by going up at the very top of the page to Preferences -> Gadgets -> check the "Twinkle" box.
  2. Just leave them a note. This is probably the best route. Just ask about the edits, that it looks like vandalism to you and could you explain.
Being an IP and they haven't edited for hours, it's best just to let go. If they come back, it will probably be under another IP. If you see them again, give me a yell. Bgwhite (talk) 06:59, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Warning me for Lola Bessis

Did you check that I created the page, but the copyright infringement was done by other editor?. --Marvellous Spider-Man 17:22, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Your block of IP 124.106.250.251

Please take a look at my response to a comment in my user talk page section here. Whatever action you do or do not take is entirely up to you. Cheers. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:05, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken

You're no stranger to Beyond My Ken's issues. He has a long history of verbal abuse and gaming the system. Most recently he made a couple of small edits (1, 2) that use his preferred footer style (bold text instead of section headings) instead of MOS:FOOTER, and added a baiting comment to the talk page. He made these edits directly after I mentioned his disruptive and abusive behavior in relation to one of the ArbCom candidates who enables this behavior by dismissing it; this suggests these edits are WP:POINT edits directed at me.

I have previously raised BMK's behavior issues to AN/I, but they were dismissed without action because BMK is "smart enough to read this and get the gist of what people are saying", and worse, BMK's disruptive behavior was dismissed as "a bit of cant" and not a behavior issue. Despite the closing statement, BMK continues to generate disruptive behavior issues. BMK's behavior issues perpetuate both his citation-unsupported content edits and his guideline-unsupported style edits. Thankfully, content disputes can be resolved with citations which BMK has to accept because of policy; however style disputes are "merely" backed by guidelines, not policies, so he chooses to ignore them; and his behavior issues are all but ignored by AN/I, and even when he snaps at an admin (you) nothing seems to happen.

There has to be something that can be done that's more effective than reprimanding him on your talk page. These are severe behavior issues that disrupt editing on Wikipedia. Furry-friend (talk) 15:26, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Furry-friend I once heard this called something like the "Malleus effect", named after user "Malleus Fatuarum"... Somebody so obnoxious, abusive and rife with ownership issues, but next to impossible to reprimand because some admins have his back. This is similar to BMK, except Malleus was much more abusive. The only thing to do is if you think you are right, stand your ground and make sure it is important enough to make a stand. Don't use verbal abuse or lower yourself. Just state your argument and why. BMK will use WP:BRD when reverting an edit (this hasn't been discussed), but often won't acknowledge it when his edit is reversed. When you revert, do the same and mention BRD. If BMK refuses to address your arguments and won't budge or you two are at an impasse, get a third opinion. Bgwhite (talk) 07:23, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

SciFan.com

Can you please explain why the entry for "SciFan.com" is being proposed for deletion? Also, why was "SciFan" redirected to "SciFan.com"? "SciFan" was the original entry. This should be reversed with a redirect of "SciFan.com" to "SciFan" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richardmmulder (talk • contribs) 02:38, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Richardmmulder It looks like SciFan.com was split from SciFan as they were two different things. One being a website and the other a genre. I agree with that reasoning. The article is being deleted for lack of references. There needs to be reliable, independent sources about SciFan.com. If you can provide those, then the article won't be deleted. Note, state trademarks are essentially worthless. It really doesn't mean anything. A federal trademark is a different story. I do think that SciFan should be redirected towards Science fantasy. Scifi is redirected to Science Fiction. There doesn't need to be two articles that are essentially the same thing. Bgwhite (talk) 07:39, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Correct correction?

Hi, User:Bgwhite new to this but wanted to check on response to speedy deletion due to copyright infringement, could you look at Pablo Castro Estevez (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and remove the speedy deletion tag if corrected as required or should this be requested by someone else? I am not author of original page....Mongepoche (talk) 21:39, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Mongepoche Looks like Diannaa already handled it. Thank you for cleaning it up. Bgwhite (talk) 22:39, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
Bgwhite Yes, I see. Added content seems to address issues of reference and citation, I believe these notices were flagged when original copyright infringement material was posted. Should someone delete template messages or should this be requested? Thanks for your responsiveness. Mongepoche (talk) 05:50, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
Mongepoche The primary source tag could be removed. I'd like to see more references on the awards. Only one is sourced. If those are two books he wrote, then adding ISBN numbers would allow others to look them up. When you add a few more refs, then remove the "needs additional citations" tag. Bgwhite (talk) 06:03, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Uno Card Game Edits

Hi Bgwhite. I am fairly new to Wikipedia editing, but I can tell you are not.  :) You recently edited the Uno Card Game page that I had been editing and removed all my Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page). edits where I had placed years in parenthesis and also included some 'special card' info if I knew it. You indicated this were not "references", however I believe having this useful information stored as a reference rather than on the actual page improves readability. Plus, the "reference" is to a point in time -- the point being a year rather than a more specific time.

Also, either one of my edits or one of yours caused the "reference sections" to display in a right hand column starting at the Themed Video Games section. I'm afraid I don't know how to fix this, but right now it does not look very nice.

May I ask you to revert your edits and help me improve the readability of the Uno Card game page? Thanks!

-Unoaddict — Preceding unsigned comment added by UNOaddict (talk • contribs) 02:26, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Listing articles in biography

I wasn't very happy to find all Graham Duncan's published articles deleted off his page, which leaves it looking rather thin, and may raise questions about notability. Since I need them to refer to when discussing the various species he wrote about I preserved them elsewhere. However it raises a more general point about what should be included in a botanist's biography, and how. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 12:33, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Michael Goodyear A long listing of journal articles doesn't mean nobility. It also doesn't help the reader, it's just a wall of text. The best way is to describe, in paragraph form, the whats and whys of Duncan's research. References to Duncan's journal articles can then be used as references. Sometimes, it maybe better to use a 3rd party reference than a journal article. If one uses a journal article of Duncan's on a species' pages, it doesn't mean it has to be used on Duncan's page. It's two different topics. Mention the species' in Duncan's article too with a journal reference? Bgwhite (talk) 21:32, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
Well obviously it was not nobility I was trying to establish!, but more an idea of this person's research and evidence to back it up, which has been my approach to date. However I was considering placing the publications in the bibliography and discussing and referencing them in the text. Otherwise nobody has a clue as to why you think they are important. I think that is what you are suggesting. Has this been addressed anywhere as a principle or guide? --Michael Goodyear (talk) 00:20, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
Michael Goodyear It's been 5ish years since I was taught not to include a long list of journal articles. Drmies and DGG both told me the same thing and both are academics. Beyond that, I'm not sure where any discussion took place. I goto both with my questions, so it's better to ask them. They are smarter than me. Bgwhite (talk) 05:26, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, speaking as an academic. I visit botanist pages daily, and the practice is rife. All the same it forms a useful resource. There are doubtless other ways of tackling this. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 15:11, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
On the other hand MOS:WORKS seems to encourage a complete listing of published works.--Michael Goodyear (talk) 16:13, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
Michael Goodyear That MOS only applies to artists. Bgwhite (talk) 22:37, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
Well, lets say the chosen examples are from the arts and humanities. It does not explicitly state either that scientists and other academics are excluded or that it is restricted to the humanities, and nor does MOS anywhere else as far as I can see. This could well be an oversight, but anyway it begs the question of why scientists should be any different. A discussion was initiated in 2011 on the talk page, but appears to have been left unresolved. MOS probably needs tweaking to address that. The other related issue is whether such lists are better handled in a Bibliography which MOS seems to hint at. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 16:23, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
Since I am actually the author of the guidance on writing biographies of botanists, I have modified it to recommend the bulk of the articles go into the Bibliography, with selected articles in the text - preferably those referred to.--Michael Goodyear (talk) 15:06, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
Michael Goodyear Changes look good. I wish more disciplines would have guidance pages. The only change has to do with the infobox. Leave |image_size= blank if one can. Leaving blank allows the photo to be resized to the user's default and depending on what device (laptop/phone) is being used. Bgwhite (talk) 18:34, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
Agreed. Done. Thanks.--Michael Goodyear (talk) 21:11, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank You and request for Help

@ Bgwhite

Thank you for your edits to Chigali and Household tools of Karnataka. I am a novice and make quite a lot of errors. But I am learning, slowly rather I should say.

I ask for your help to rename the page Household tools of Karnataka to Household tools in Karnataka, please.

Sincerely

--Kireadsalot (talk) 07:04, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

@ Bgwhite

Much obliged for your help. Thanks a lot

--Kireadsalot (talk) 07:27, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for renaming the page

@ Bgwhite,

Thanks a bunch for the help. Much appreciated.

Regards --Kireadsalot (talk) 07:30, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Need your help, Again!

@ Bgwhite, Hello!

At the risk of being considered stalking or pesterance or being a total ignorant, I seek your help again. I assure you I am not the former. The middle one surely. Latter, to a large extent, may be :]

For the page on Chigali, I had requested for photos from a website by mail. Today I received reply to use the photos. Could you please guide as to, how to go about posting the photos on the page considering permissions? Or should I mail it to some address and they will post it? Yeah, that ignorant! Hope I am not being too interruptive , needy and such others. Hope for your guidance

Regards

--Kireadsalot (talk) 10:25, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Kireadsalot Feel free to bug, cajole, irritate, and just be a general nuisance. If you add evil to the list, you would be my mother-in-law. Don't worry about asking questions or not knowing what to do. I've been here umpteen years and I still don't know all the ins and outs of Wikipedia. The instructions can be found here under the "When permission is confirmed" section. The people at OTRS are few in number and are usually swamped with requests, so it may take a bit to receive a message back. Bgwhite (talk) 21:40, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

@ Bgwhite, Hello!

Amused with 'evil' Mother in law :) There ought to be a page on that :) :). If already there isn't, perhaps one day, may be? :)

Thanks for being so generous. Might I add modest to that?


I shall go about contacting for uploading the photos. I shall continue to seek your help. Thanks a bunch.

--Kireadsalot (talk) 07:41, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Tick-Tock model/Atom roadmap and Tick-Tock model/main roadmap

Before renaming articles without leaving a redirect, please check what links to them (nothing now, since the broken articles got reverted). In doubt, maybe ask the author to do so instead of leaving behind *broken* articles. Thanks. -- Pizzahut2 (talk) 22:16, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Pizzahut2 I did not rename your "articles" I moved them to draft space. There cannot be any redirects to draft space and if there is one, it will be speedy deleted under R2. You were calling them templates. Templates don't go into mainspace. I had two choices. Delete or move. I choose to move. If you were separating sections out and then combining them into one, this is also wrong as there is no reason for that. Bgwhite (talk) 01:39, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
I had a reason but never mind, that's a moot point. I would however appreciated it if you had taken a look at "what links here" and adjusted the transclusions to at least point to the new destination if redirects aren't allowed, so people don't accuse me of simply deleting stuff rather than moving content to sub pages. --Pizzahut2 (talk) 22:00, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

LISTGAP bug

Hello, Wikipedia has led me to your talk page when I clicked on BG19bot talk. If you are responsible for this bot, please note that I think I have found a bug. The bot should not 'clean up' the contents of an HTML comment. –i.e., <!-- this is the contents of a comment. -->. HTML comments will never contain list HTML formatting because the contents of comments are never rendered by browsers. Therefore, I don't anticipate that HTML comments will ever be an issue for screen readers. In this case, the use of asterisks in a comment were interpreted by the bot to be a list even though they were not. The bot should be cognizant of HTML comments and avoid changing them. I may be mistaken about all of this because I have never used a screen reader. Please see List of piano makers for an example. You must enter the Edit page in order to see the comment section at the top that contains the Style Guide. I have already restored the changes made by BG19bot. --Chris Murphy (talk) 05:17, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Brumado

Olá, creio que se enganou e se, por acaso, usou algum robô, ele deve ter te enganado, pois não existem links da wikipédia como referências, mas agradeço pelo interesse. O que eu preciso mesmo é de ajuda para tradução, se alguém se interessasse, eu o agradeceria. Obrigado. Alessandro Sil (talk) 14:20, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

article "events leading to the attack on Pearl Harbor" needs more contributing historical events

Hello,

As December 7th is tomorrow, readers may come upon this article, looking for causes that lead up to the attack. If you decide to visit my page and view articles I tend to edit, many of them have a Japanese involvement that I find myself adding content to. When I read the beginning paragraph to "events leading up to the attack", I am motivated to add several events that happened in China and Japan that are of significant importance that aren't mentioned, but I am hesitant, and would like to invite other editors before I do, so as to prevent "edit waring".

In China, the Opium Wars need at least a link and a brief explanation on this page, along with Meiji Restoration and the pivotal Convention of Kanagawa in Japan also need to be mentioned. Essentially, China and Japan, being civilizations that are at a minimum 2,000 years old, began to enforce isolationist policies in their respective countries to resist Western colonization efforts. The men who orchestrated the attack on Pearl Harbor were small children when the above events took place, and the article will benefit the reader as to their contributions and historical significance. I don't wish to exonerate what took place during WWII, and the actions of the Japanese military, but their motivations are rooted in events that happened to them. Would you like to collaborate? (Regushee (talk) 22:58, 6 December 2016 (UTC))

Request to create a Redirect

@ Bgwhite, Hello! I seek your help to create a redirect for search word 'Oralu kallu' from Mortar and pestle to Household Stone tools in Karnataka. My reasons are,

  1. On page Household Stone tools in Karnataka, Oralu Kallu is specifically described and finds mention at first line of the article.
  2. Oralu kallu is a Kannada word used in Karnataka.
  3. Oralu kallu does not find specific mention on the page Mortar and pestle.

I am not sure whether my reasoning meets requirements, if any for a redirect. If in your judgement, a redirect could be created, I request you to create one please. Sincerely --Kireadsalot (talk) 08:54, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Kireadsalot Your request makes sense. You can edit the redirect yourself. It's at https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Oralu_kallu&redirect=no Bgwhite (talk) 09:01, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

@ Bgwhite,

Created the link! Learnt a new thing today! Thank you for that.

Regards --Kireadsalot (talk) 09:54, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

@Kireadsalot: Please don't use <br /> tags like that, in most cases they're completely unnecessary. To mage a new paragraph, just leave one blank line. More at Help:Wiki markup#Line breaks. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:17, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

@Redrose64, Hello!

Thank you for the advise.

Regards

--Kireadsalot (talk) 10:35, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you

@ Bgwhite Hello again ! Just wanted to thank you for the help on uploading photos. I have uploaded photos on Chigali and Household Stone tools in Karnataka. Regards --Kireadsalot (talk) 08:58, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Kireadsalot Even better, you can now easily upload more photos to other articles. Bgwhite (talk) 09:02, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

@Bgwhite, I have come to understand little bit of the process. Though I feel, I need to be more experienced. Thanks for the guidance Sincerely --Kireadsalot (talk) 10:18, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

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) 00:26, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Abuabu Cross

Hi Bgwhite, thank you for the edit and corrections. There is only one problem the heading should read "Abuabu Cross" and not 'Aboabo Cross' as it is now. Can you please help me change the spelling? I have tried but it hasn't worked. Kind regards, Dorothyelliott (talk) 02:43, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Dorothyelliott Done. I was wondering about the spelling. Bgwhite (talk) 04:38, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
Hi Bgwhite, thanks for the correction.

K-rgds,Dorothyelliott (talk) 15:59, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Dorothyelliott Give a yell if you ever need help or to ask a question. I'd suggest you get a couple more refs for the Abuabu article. Bgwhite (talk) 21:11, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Your minor change for Catherine Belkhodja

User:SWP13>I changed Algerian to Algerian but you changed it back to Algerian. I am confused?

SWP13 Well, I'm always confused, so I can't help you there. The bot arrived because the article was missing a {{reflist}}, but you added it in just before the bot could. The bot changed [[Algeria|Algerian]] to [[Algeria]]n as that is the shorter and easier to read version. Anything next to the last ] (ie the n) will still be included into the wikilink. Other examples are [[Help]]s --> Helps and [[Help]]justaboutanything --> Helpjustaboutanything. Bgwhite (talk) 10:01, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

edits to Zazen Xstasy

I removed major vandalism to Zazen Xstasy. Unfortunately your edits were done post that so they also got washed away. Please redo. Sorry. -- Alexf(talk) 16:12, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Tech News: 2016-50

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

  • Users who have Yahoo email addresses could not use Special:EmailUser to send emails. This has now been fixed. Emails will now come from a @wikimedia.org address. Users who get an email from you will still reply to your email address and be able to see it. [4]
  • You can now see how many categories and pages there are in the categories in Special:TrackingCategories. This is to help you find pages that could need attention. [5]
  • Markup colours for reviewed and pending revisions in the page history and recent changes and logs now match Wikimedia standard colours. The "You have a new message on your talk page" notification will have a slightly different colour. [6]

Problems

  • Because of work on cross-wiki watchlists global renaming is not working. The plan is to turn it on again on 16 December. Global renaming was turned off for a while in late November and early December as well. [7]

Changes this week

  • The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 13 December. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 14 December. It will be on all wikis from 15 December (calendar).

Meetings

  • You can join the next meeting with the VisualEditor team. During the meeting, you can tell developers which bugs you think are the most important. The meeting will be on December 13 at 20:00 (UTC). See how to join.

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

19:29, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 12 December

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) 00:18, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)  Fixed. That was a good one. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:35, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 13 December

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, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

AWB

Again, AWB needs to be used with extreme caution. I reverted one of your edits because it threw the page into chaos. There was not actually a problem that needed fixing. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 02:26, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Michael Goodyear People like you really disgust me. I make ~300+ edits a day in which I go around fixing other people's mistakes. But if I make a mistake you go all crazy. It was a manual edit in which AWB didn't play a part in the mistake, so stop whining about AWB. You've been going off on that for years. You've been going off on how I destroy all your articles for years and most of the time it's your fault to begin with. Don't use multiple reflists without groups. No articles does this as it causes problems and I keep fixing them. Spelling, broken bracket and setting Google Books to the correct URL were all fixed. As you can never be nice and always accusatory, go away. Bgwhite (talk) 05:09, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
I respectfully suggest you rethink the tone of your response, as not being in the constructive spirit of WP.--Michael Goodyear (talk) 12:15, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
Which was my point directed towards you. You are welcome to leave messages here, but not hostile and condescending one like you usually do. I'm tired of it and won't take it any more. Bgwhite (talk) 21:09, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
What on earth are you talking about? Many people just revert edits when they see errors as in this case. I consider it more constructive and polite to leave the editor an explanatory note.--Michael Goodyear (talk) 18:18, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
"Again, AWB needs to be used with extreme caution" and "There was not actually a problem that needed fixing" are not reporting errorss. One sentence reported the error, the other two had to put a dig in. You keep doing this. Bgwhite (talk) 19:20, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

AWB Fix #94 Potential Mistake

I think you might have made a mistake with Wikipedia:AWB on this edit, which listed WP:CHECKWIKI error fix #94. I don't see anything wrong with the references as they were. Are references not allowed on redirect pages? Sondra.kinsey (talk) 19:01, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Sondra.kinsey Several things going on. Generally, redirects don't have refs, just like disambiguation pages. There was no need for the <ref> tag... It's not an article and doesn't have a ref sections. Until a few months ago, MediaWiki would see an error of refs with no {{reflist}}. Job has been taking over by bots. Finally, rootsweb is generally an unreliable reference, thus cannot be used as a ref. Bgwhite (talk) 21:19, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Browser-specific markup

Hi, I noticed you removed some css on the grounds it was browser-specific.

You replaced it with a template which does not work on Firefox, i.e. it was also browser-specific.

I've tried using the colbegin ... colend templates, which may perhaps work across the board. Or perhaps not. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:34, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

@Chiswick Chap: The reason it doesn't work is not because Firefox doesn't support it, but because Bgwhite is making the wrong replacement (and should instead use |colwidth= rather than |1=). @Bgwhite: Please fix. --Izno (talk) 21:40, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
[Amused] Dear talk page stalker (behaviourally identified!), thank you very much for the information. It looks as if colbegin...colend are pretty portable across browsers, but if not, then any of us can use your fix. :} Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:46, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
Chiswick Chap {{columns-list}} with |column-width=30em works just fine on Firefox. Works on every version of Firefox since 2005. {{colbegin}} and use the same underlying <div> settings. I screwed up on not adding colwidth and doing a copy/paste across several articles. Bgwhite (talk) 21:44, 13 December 2016 (UTC) (UTC)
I just observed that the combination didn't work. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:46, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
Glad we've found a method that now works. Well done all round. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:52, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
Chiswick Chap You are hereby warned... I "fixed" some more. When I mess up, I usually put a }} instead of a | at the end... {{columns-list}} vs {{columns-list| If there is some unusual way to screw things up, I'll do it. Thank you for telling me about my oops as it allowed me to fix other articles I screwed up on. Bgwhite (talk) 21:40, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
Glad to have been of service. I find that when my woopsie/decent edit ratio gets a bit high, a nice walk usually helps! Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:48, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Checkwiki error #61 edit ...

This edit by your bot says that it is fixing error #61 - but I'm not seeing that it did anything about references before punctuation. Is it fixing the underscore in Romney_Marsh? Probably needs some checking to make sure it's giving the correct fix edit summary. Just a heads up! Ealdgyth - Talk 13:26, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Ealdgyth Everything is working fine. Checkwiki processing of articles edited that day starts just after 0z. It works in alphabetical order. Checkwiki processing found a #61 issue <ref name=Kapelle3>Kapelle ''The Norman Conquest of the North'' p.3</ref>,. You then edited the page at 0:26z and the edit corrected the error. The bot came around and it applied "general fixes". Fixing #61 is part of "general fixes". Combining named refs and removing underscores are also general fixes. I've revert your edit with an explanation. If you have questions, give a yell. Bgwhite (talk) 21:33, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
Ealdgyth I see you changing things again. Thanks for responding to my message above. Thanks for having your goon demand I discuss things while thinking this isn't a discussion. Bgwhite (talk) 00:23, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
I did not do anything to ping Hchc at all - I was actually out to dinner when I saw you'd reverted me. I waited until I got home, removed the ""'s (because they aren't in use in any other part of the article) but left the consolidated ref in (which you were correct on), and only after that did I see the comments on Hchc's talk page. I truly do think that having the bot leave an edit summary that it is fixing a checkwiki error that is in fact not fixed is misleading. I understand how it happened, and I'm not going to scream that the bot needs to be shut down or whatever, but if the bot could be made to NOT leave a misleading edit summary it would be nice (and would probably cut down on queries on your page). I do appreciate the work bots do - truly, I do. But ... using ""s in ref names is a personal preference. Reordering ref numbers is a personal preference. My personal opinion is that no bot should do those things unless they are already present in the article. (And I'd be willing to bet that at some point a bot/AWB editor ran over Battle of Hastings and put the refs in numerical order - I am not that worried about it, but it does annoy other editors. I certainly don't worry about ordering the references in articles I work on though).
Ealdgyth The bot's edit summary cannot be changed based on what is all did or didn't do. It is mostly static. This goes for most all other bots. I type the edit summary in and let it go. I receive very little messages about this. There is an talk about reording references. It's mostly devolved into a mess. I've been told 20 different ways editors order their refs. (chronological order, order of importance, order in which they show up in the sentence, alphabetical order by title, author, journal, ...). Yet, the reader doesn't know. 9 times out of 10, it's the editor exercising their ownership. When the owner finally leaves Wikipedia, nobody will know why the order is the way it is. I agree with you about the double quotes. I've filed a bug report... T153398. Bgwhite (talk) 05:56, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Block of Yobot

I'm replying to your comments here because I don't want that thread to become longer and more complicated than it already is. If you really think my block is unjustified, you, or Magio, are welcome to appeal it and have another administrator take a look. If you want, I will put a standard block template on the page to make appealing easier. I have not done so up to now because I considered that to be merely inflamatory. Or you can take it to ANI. I will not stand in the way of an uninvolved admin unblocking Yobot. SpinningSpark 23:48, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Spinningspark Just to note, I never said your initial block was unjustified. What I want to know is your policy based justifications for keeping Yobot blocked? What is the immediate danger of keeping Yobot blocked while hundreds of others run around doing the same thing? Bgwhite (talk) 00:01, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
Well that's an OTHERSTUFF argument. Yobot is the one that came up on my radar. Let's deal with that one before worrying about what other bots are doing. If they are all using AWB then it will be one fix fits all in any case. SpinningSpark 00:13, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
Spinningspark Glad to know you think following policy is "OTHERSTUFF" while you keeping Yobot blocked because "is the one that came up on my radar" isn't found in policy. Bgwhite (talk) 00:21, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
The policy based reason for keeping Yobot blocked is WP:COSMETICBOT. SpinningSpark 00:58, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
Spinningspark Yet, you haven't been saying COSMETICBOT is the reason for keeping the block. The exact reason you gave for blocking is Ok, I've blocked the bot until this gets answered. I asked you point blank and you've only said the template redirect. You've been saying template redirect all along. The problem that caused the cosmetic edits has been rectified, so the initial reason for blocking is no more. Dexbot was blocked for the same thing and now is running fine. You have no policy on why the block should remain. Things were answered and fix. It appears the only reason to keep block is your personal grudge with AWB. Bgwhite (talk) 05:32, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
I only came to your page to suggest that you might want to lodge an appeal. I didn't intend to continue the dispute here, so I won't respond to most of your points. I'll just limit myself to pointing to Yobot's block log where I give the block reason as "Bot making trivial non-visible edits". That is precisely COSMETICBOT. Anything else, I'll say elsewhere. SpinningSpark 14:32, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Spinningspark Since the normality between Yobot and CHECKWIKI wa re-established, Yobot won't be making "trivial non-visible edits" anymore but only in addition to its main task as the majority of AWB bots does. -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:40, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 16 December

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) 00:22, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Editor's Barnstar
Thank you for editing my article! Maxsterthemaster (talk) 02:31, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 17 December

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) 00:20, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 18 December

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) 00:18, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Syed Mohsin Nawab Rizvi

Would you be okay with dropping the protection on Syed Mohsin Nawab Rizvi? It appears that only one autoconfirmed user was causing trouble there, so it could probably be better handled via a block if it resumes. Jackmcbarn (talk) 19:41, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bgwhite/Archive_57&oldid=1142889205"