This is an archive of past discussions with User:Bgwhite. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
I know the temptation of falling back on regulations and set rules & habits. And I know the risk of stopping to think and relying strictly on those. If WP serves any purpose, it's of offering the user/reader easy access to good information. That is the raison d'etre or "fundamental law" of WP. Period. All the WP rules are made to serve that purpose. When rules and logic come into conflict with each other, it's like a law being contested in front of the constitutional court. There, as here, the question asked is: does it serve the purpose, as stated by the "fundamental law"? The spirit of the law takes precedence over the letter of the law. So, when something helps the user/reader without harming the page, it's good and it should stay. Robotically removing good info based on some WP regulation, which is anyhow subject to constant improvement, is not constructive, meaning: harms the value of WP to the reader. Please consider this. Thank you. ArmindenArminden (talk) 07:23, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
Arminden Next time you go on a tirade, don't. Ask a question instead of throwing a hissy fit. As I said in my edit summary, I cannot see if there is a red link or a blue link and do a interwiki link properly. You don't do
Hi. Exactly my point. I care about the information first, and far less about the formal aspects. I gave a good source, the German page. You ERASED it completely. I reverted, and only then did you fix the formal aspect. Thank you for the more elegant linkage! I was counting on someone doing that, grateful for you doing it. But I'd appreciate even more if you did that right away, not only after a knee jerk-type full removal. If you cannot tell red from blue... I'd rather not comment. As about the hissy fit - same story: a) I apologise if I offended you, b) I still do care more about bringing a point across than about the formal aspect; I don't think removing good info produced through a substantial investment of TIME and (good & effective) EFFORT is any less offensive than a frank communication. Cheers, Arminden PS: Thank you for the templates, I've copied it and will use it from now on. I have tried 2 different ones and they didn't work out nicely, I am grateful for this info and will use it.Arminden (talk) 12:08, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
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
A daily email summary of notifications could be sent even when there were no notifications from the wiki. Now no email will be sent if there is no activity. [2]
Changes this week
The "⧼citoid-citefromidtool-title⧽" button in the visual editor's toolbar will move into the "Insert" menu except for Wikipedias, Wikibookses and Wikiversities. This is to make it less prominent on wikis that don't use it as much. [3]
The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 5 July. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 6 July. It will be on all wikis from 7 July (calendar).
Meetings
You can take part in the next office hour for Wikidata on IRC on July 8 at 16:00 (UTC). See how to join.
I see that you altered the formatting of references in the article Samuel F. Upham which I recently created. I have typically placed the convenience link to Google Books, for instance, at the beginning of the reference, but you moved the author's name before the convenience link. If this is called for by the manual of style or some referencing guideline, or if there is a practical reason why it makes an article better. please provide a link. I want to reference articles correctly. Thanks. Edison (talk) 15:02, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
Your version is fine and makes the name of the work a blue clicklink, the same as the citebook format, so it seems the better way. Thanks. Edison (talk) 15:37, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
Edison It's best to avoid links that are just brackets, ie [1]. I see you went thru and fixed the rest of the refs to avoid the brackets. I put the link on the title of the book or journal article as that is the most common way. Some people put the link on the page number of the book. See WP:PAGELINK for more info.
It's good that a bot can detect ISBNs that do not fit Wikipedia's preferences. I try to enter ISBNs as given by the publisher in the work consulted. The "Sermons,,," book has an ISBN-13: 987-0-7880-2451-1 and a different ISBN-10: 0-7880-2451-5. . The Pastoral.." book just has an ISBN0-8192-1894-4. In the past someone once insisted on changing the ISBN from that in the book I have on my bookshelf to that of a different edition, with revised content and different page numbering. Someone should inform the publishers how to print ISBNs. I don't see that I have used "links that are just brackets." They include the full URL. Perhap you refer to the way it displays in the article. It is not a bare URL since full bibliographic information is included, even if it is a few characters further along in the reference. It is the bibliographic information that matters, and the URL is just a convenience. Many URLs go stale over time, in any even, when they are to news media.I agree it is better when formatted as the article is now, so that the actual title becomes a clicklink. Thanks. Edison (talk) 21:13, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
(talk page stalker)@Edison: If you look at the version prior to Bgwhite's edit, you'll see that each ref begins with a number inside square brackets, i.e. "[4]Upham, F.K." or "[5]Larsson, E. Axel". This is what Bgwhite refers to as "links that are just brackets".
Still considering that version, notice that one of the ISBNs (ISBN0-8192-1894-4) is a bluelink - the others are all shown in black, so are not links. It doesn't matter whether you use the 10-digit or 13-digit form, what matters is that between the letters "ISBN" and the 10- or 13-digit number, you put a space - and no other characters. If you comply with this, the ISBN becomes a clickable link. This is explained more fully at WP:ISBN. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:53, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
Edison ISBN-10 (10 digits) is the older version and ISBN-13 (13 digits) is the newer version. They are running out of numbers for ISBN-10. At the moment, all books have both versions and they are essentially the same number. In the "Sermons,,," book you gave, both ISBN versions have "0-7880-2451". There's also ISBN-13s that start with 979, but only French, Italian and Korean books use 979 at the moment. You only need to list one version of ISBN, preferably the newer one. The ISBN used should be from the edition given in the ref. WP:CITEHOW says each edition is considered a separate, different source. Bgwhite (talk) 21:57, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
User 'Serampore WestBengal'
Can you please ban the user 'Serampore WestBengal' for disruptive editing, ban evading and username violation. I've just spent the last half hour cleaning up his latest mess which of course includes his obsessive copyright violation. Cheers David.moreno72 (talk) 05:53, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
David.moreno72 Yea, it is getting ridiculous. They started out promising, but its degraded over the past week. This will be about the 5th sock I've blocked. Two other pages they have "fun" on are still protected. Oh joy. Bgwhite (talk) 05:56, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
What is the legal way to cite the German Wikipedia? There appears to be no other available source for the material in question, so I can't just leave out the reference. Thanks in advance for your answer. Opus33 (talk) 04:53, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
Opus33 Do you mean citing German Wikipedia as a reference? If so, then you can't. Wikipedia is a unreliable source because anybody can edit.
Thank you for your answer. I remain puzzled about one thing, namely this bit of code you added: {{ill|de|Annemarie Seidel}}. Clicking on "de" does take the viewer to the German Wikipedia. Is this legal, and if so might I use it elsewhere in the article? Sincerely, Opus33 (talk) 15:19, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) See WP:REDDEAL explaining the use of the {{ill}} template. It is not citing another Wikipedia as a reference, it is a placeholder for something that may in the future become an English Wikipedia article in its own right, but currently has an article somewhere else. A deluxe redlink if you will. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:35, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
Hello, I'm CoolCanuck. An edit that you recently made to Simcoe County District School Board seemed to be a test and has been removed. If you want more practice editing, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. While I assume good faith, please review your edits before saving them, review page history comments, and consider a more meaningful summary than "ce" which is the equivalent of no summary. CoolCanuckeh?20:24, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
(talk page watcher) @CoolCanuck: Do you mean that you don't understand what "ce" means? It's a very common abbreviation - try WP:GLOSSARY - meaning "copy edit", ie clean up the article without changing the content. If you mean that you don't understand why BGW's edit was described as copy-editing... it looks as if s/he was removing totally non-standard formatting, though as the file you were trying to add has now been deleted I can't see what effect it had. There's no indication in the {{Infobox school district}} template documentation that there is any provision for using an image file for "motto" rather than plain text, so you may have been pushing the infobox beyond its capacities. I've replaced the plain wording of the motto, which by now had completely disappeared. PamD08:29, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
You might like to read WP:DTR: it's pretty insulting to suggest to such an experienced editor that their edit "seemed to be a test". If you add a standard template and then realise that the wording is inappropriate for the situation, it's better to revert your adition and add a message in your own words instead. And remember to sign your messages. Thanks. PamD08:32, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
@CoolCanuck: Have struck out the irrelevant comment, which was left behind after I'd first misread an unsigned comment added by an IP who'd not started a new section nor left a blank line so that I'd read their unsigned addition as being the end of your posting starting "I am CoolCanuck". My misreading: I moved their comment to the section below but forgot to remove the comment. Sorry about that. PamD21:37, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
Reference errors on 7 July
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:
Hello Bgwhite, I added some notable people to Chur, you removed some of them.
I took them from G. Wikipedia, so there are different criteria in Engl. and Ger. wikipedia? Kind regards--Buchbibliothek (talk) 06:38, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
BuchbibliothekWP:LISTPEOPLE is the criteria. I removed all the names that didn't have an article except for Fritz Krauss. As Fritz Krauss was an Admiral, he would meet nobility requirements. Some of the politicians might be kept, but I didn't know if they were local or national. If they were a politician at the national or canton level, then they most likely would meet the nobility requirements.
If any of the people have an article on dewiki, then you can add them to the list. See up above for the options on how to wikilink them to dewiki. Bgwhite (talk) 06:48, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
Can you block this nutter, if you are online: Gschofer (talk·contribs). There's already an ANI about him [6] but he's persisting in mass vandalizing. I can't keep up with the rollback and I'm going to sleep. Softlavender (talk) 11:44, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
Reference errors on 8 July
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:
Hello, In response to Ashish Kothari, I do not understand why have you removed the publications. Most of the academicians who have a page on Wikipeida have a bibliography index. This is entirely different from a CV.Abhinav619 (talk) 13:22, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
Abhinav619 As I mentioned in my edit summary, Wikipedia is not a CV. Having a big long list of publications... Journal articles, chapters in books and books edited don't have to be listed, that goes into a CV. Only list books. Make sure the ISBN is listed and correct. Several of the ISBNs you did list were bogus. Bgwhite (talk) 04:49, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
The template used on women's section of this template is not showing agg values! That's why I used the other form of the same template!
Valmir144 Haven't a clue what an agg value is. You aren't using any templates, so don't know what you mean by "That's why I used the other form of the same template" Three people have spent alot of time cleaning up what you added. The cleanup left the article exactly the same for the reader, but a ton of uneeded junk removed. What you attempted to add was the exact same thing that was already cleaned. There is no need for #if statements, template variables and not using table wikicode in any article unless it involves dates. Use the same templates that is already in the article. Bgwhite (talk) 05:02, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
Agg value is the sum of score 1 and score 2. Even when you add, it doesn't show
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
A new image scaler fixed a number of bugs for showing SVG files. Some new problems turned up. [7][8][9]
Notifications are grouped by types. They are now counted by number of notifications and not by unread groups. That change may increase the number of notifications displayed. The earlier way of counting was often incorrect. Unread notifications will also be displayed first. [10][11][12]
Special:Notifications now has a maximum width for the notifications list on desktop computers. This allows long titles and descriptions to be cut properly. Notifications are now also better parsed. [13][14][15]
Problems
On 5 July Wikimedia Commons had problems and could not be edited for 20 minutes. For a short while after that the recent changes log and some gadgets were not working properly. It affected administrative actions on other projects too. [16]
Users who have multiple unread notifications can mark them as read by visiting Special:Notifications page on their wiki.
Changes this week
The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 12 July. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 13 July. It will be on all wikis from 14 July (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 12 July at 19:00 (UTC). See how to join.
You have locked down and protected an article that is biographical in nature and does not contain all the pertinent information about the person in question. You have chosen to put a version of biographical history that is not representative of that person's life. How was this choice made? It appears to trivialise that person's life for a more sensationalistic viewpoint that is refutable. To be free of bias, I am requesting that the original article that was created in Wikipedia be instantiated or that the original author (Swami Shankarananda) be able to provide his biographical information to be provided and page protected. It is obvious this page has been under constant vandalism. The current page that you have protected is the least informative about the subject.
49.183.163.94 You were repeatedly reverting any edits to the article, including edits made by bots. You reverted over 25 times in the past month that included atleast 6 different editors. You were removing sourced material and adding unsourced material. The current version of the article has 12 references. Your version had no references. You were also removing the lede (first paragraph) in many of your versions. Swami Shankarananda should not be editing their own article. This is called a conflict of interest. Bgwhite (talk) 10:01, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
The haves and the have nots
Excuse me, there were actors from The Haves and the Have nots who received starring credit for the shows fourth season: their names are Shari headly, Allison mcatee, Danielle deadwyler, Nicholas James, Jon chaffin, Brett davis, and presilah nunez. They should be on the "starring" list at the very top of the article, could you add them please. I can't without my computer, hopefully it'll be fixed soon. Do it whenever you can, thanks! 😀 Zhyboo (talk) 05:17, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
Zhyboo I'm not familiar with the article or the people you mention. I'd rather hold off and not make any edit on the page.
They are some of the people starring on the show, I edit certain tv show articles I'm not familiar with sometimes, I just asked u to add their names, that's all I ask, sometimes I need someone to correct edits I can't Zhyboo (talk) 20:31, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
Une étoile pour vous !
L’étoile du défenseur du Wiki
Thanks for your help.
I'm new contributor on Wikipedia. There are some differences between Wikipedia in French and in English. In English version, I don't know use some references.
Thank you.
How do we stop the bot from making edits like this, where is re-orders the citations? In most cases, reordering the citations is harmless. However, in some cases the citations are in a carefully chosen order - the first link shows a video of the subject saying the words, the other links are to newspapers that report on him saying this. Having your bot re-order the citations so they are in the order [16][65][66], instead of [65][16][66] is unhelpful.-- Toddy1(talk)07:35, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
Toddy1 The reader has no clue why the refs are in what order. Most people will choose the last reference listed. Options:
It might be a good idea to add a sentence highlighting the video if that is the most prominent ref. Maybe, "In a video from CNN,<ref> Naik said...". This way the reader knows there is a video and will choose that to watch.
Add it after "said", except change it from "Naik has reportedly said" to "Naik has said". If the video has him speaking, it is no longer reportedly.
Otherwise, you can use the {{not a typo}} template around the refs. All bots will ignore what is inside.
Re. "Most people will choose the last reference listed" – if that is correct, this is an editorial choice that should be left to non-bot editors based on WP:CONSENSUS, and with which bots should not interfere. At best such bot edits should be rejected per WP:COSMETICBOT. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:07, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
I have asked you specifically to stop adding disruptive edits
Pengo Not point. You added nobots. Magioladitis removed it. I added it back on as you originally had it. I was fixing the other articles too. As other bots do the same thing, I was making sure another bot didn't do the same thing. Bgwhite (talk) 07:26, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.
Pengo is involved. Pengo blocked BG19bot, without warning a few days ago and was quickly overturned. Pengo added {{bot|deny=bgwhite,yobot,BG19bot}} to articles. As there are more bots that will do what he has complained about, for example any AWB and WPCleaner bot, I replaced it with {{nobots}}. This will make it so any bot will not do any of the edits they don't like. I only changed the articles they recently added nobots to. I since went on to do Checkwiki work when I was blocked. This is a punitive, involved and illegal block. Bgwhite (talk) 07:38, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
No admin, so I can't reply to the unblock request (for clarity). Reading the bots/nobots' template documentation I see it is recommended to keep these out of mainspace as much as possible: they can be applied only temporarily, until underlying issues are resolved. So, Bgwhite and Pengo: what is your plan to address underlying issues? Editwarring over exactly which of a choice of anti-bot templates is used is not near to addressing said issues. Can either of you sketch a plan forward on these issues? Failing such initiative I don't see why Pengo should be less blocked than Bgwhite... only saying, the responsability for trying to get out of the conundrum is shared.
Yesterday I put some effort in tricking bots out of being overzealous, per Bgwhite's suggestions in the previous section on this talk page ([18]). I don't think that is normal though. Bots like AWB should refrain from such clearly WP:COSMETICBOT edits. The botless editors shouldn't be in a position they need to take all kinds of precautionary measures in preventing such edits. So how do we address this? --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:57, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
Francis Schonken Pengo doesn't like some edits the bot makes. There was a long An discussion. I'm not disagree with the addition of the nobots template. ~50 bots are AWB or WPCleaner based, plus some others that will do the same things and they will make the same edits that Pengo does not like. I was being proactive to stop any trouble Pengo did not like, including adding nobots to articles in which they were removed from that Pango had added them to. As Pengo has reverted all the edits, their articles are now open for bots to make the same troubling edits. Bgwhite (talk) 08:08, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
Re. "I'm not disagree with the addition of the nobots template" – well, you should per the template documentation, as should Pengo regarding the addition of the bots template. These templates should not show up in mainspace, unless as an extreme ("blunt instrument" is the expression in the template documentation) temporary measure. I still fail to see a commitment to address the underlying issue which would allow to not have either of these templates show up in mainspace. If the problem is Pengo, as you seem to suggest, then sort your issue with them out. The least you could do now is ping them to your talk page showing a comitment to finding a consensus on the underlying matter. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:18, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
(struck the last part as you have been unblocked now and I don't think it a good idea to discuss the same issue on multiple pages when there's no need to, so please continue the conversation at AN and try to find a compromise). --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:22, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
From reading the sections above I can see that you get a lot of undeserved flack for running that useful bot. I thank you anyway. Stepho talk05:16, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
I was investigating copyright issues, and wanted to roll back the recent IP edits but your edit followed. I decided the fastest solution was to revert, and I'll ask you to check to see if your edit should still apply - I think it was making minor fixes to material I have removed, but not fully sure.--S Philbrick(Talk)16:30, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
Sphilbrick It was a CheckWiki edit. So, if the error is still there, it will be picked up on the next daily scan and I can fix it then. It was a #90 error, which means Wikipedia was probably being used as a reference. Bgwhite (talk) 05:11, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
Hi, regarding, List of compositions by Franz Liszt, how about you apply the genfixes/formatting fixes in one edit and then the typo fixes in a second. That way we can have a much smaller diff with the typo corrections then discuss whether "exécution transcendante" and "Impromptu brillant sur des thèmes de Rossini et Spontini" are English-language typos alongside "Organ, chamber, arrangment" more clearly. Thanks Rjwilmsi08:38, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
Changes on list of comp. by F. Liszt
Repling to your comment on Liszt's comp list: "Also, <ul> is im propper html and not used in Wikipedia like this." Sorry, not used to wiki syntax and this was a (temp) fix to place some indents in the main table. If you know the proper html please inform me. I originally wanted to creat headers inside the main table to autogenerate a TOC like in a normal article, however that's apparently not possible so I had to come up with a workaround and created something similar (a manual "TOC"). --Funper (talk) 07:09, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Funper You can also use the box that's at the top of table along with the anchors. However, don't hide the box. It needs to be seen. Bgwhite (talk) 07:36, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Thanks! That takes care of the TOC. My other issue is indentations. A great number of compositions in the table are actually collections of works, thus listed individually under a main title. They should preferably be indented so it's easier to see that they belong together and are not standalone works. I understand "ul" to be improper, would you know any alternatives? --Funper (talk) 07:57, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Funper Do you want bullet lists or numbered lists? For bullets, use a * at the beginning of the line. For numbered lists, use # at the beginning. If you want to indent further, then add a second one, ie ** or ##. Bgwhite (talk) 08:06, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Hello,
Would you please restore the links to the article in Russian Wikipedia on "Vyacheslav Evgen'evich Tishchenko", a Russian organic chemist?
The links appeared in the English Wikipedia articles on "Tishchenko reaction" and "Aluminium isopropoxide".
The Russian article provided the full name and dates of Mr. Tishchenko. There is little information about him in non-Russian sources. I know that you'd like an English-language source for the information, but I'm afraid that there's none to be found. So the Russian article will have to suffice, and there are a few of us native English speakers who can read foreign languages, even Russian. So a link to the article isn't useless.
If it wasn't formatted according to Wikipedia standards, please re-format it. But don't delete it. It's useful, and it provides the reference for Tishchenko's name, dates, and occupation.
VexorAbVikipædia (talk) 11:50, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
VexorAbVikipædia One cannot use Wikipedia as a reference, so the link must be deleted. It's best to use only English references, but one can use non-English refs. One can create a interwiki link. It looks like a wikilink, but goes to another language Wikipedia. See Help:Interwiki linking for help on how to do it. Bgwhite (talk) 20:48, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
...I replied in my talk page. Also left a message at the user's talk page and did some editing on the article. As I suspected, it's a case of "family history". With so many gen sites, perhaps he should write about it there. Regards, --Maragm (talk) 19:55, 31 July 2016 (UTC) ps...article in es.wiki is protected now, same story.
I've reverted part of your edit here as it caused two tables that previously displayed alongside one another to shift above each other - the part of the edit I've undone is the removal of the 'col-break'/'col-end' bits. Looking at the edit summary this seems to be a semi-automated edit? I never really understand what's going on when I see this 'checkwiki' stuff in an edit summary! I'm just trying to ascertain if there was a reason for that bit of the edit that might mean we need to rethink how the page is formatted (is it an accessibility thing?), or if this bit of the edit was an error, or something else? Cheers! Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 14:42, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ThisisDA until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. for (;;)(talk)11:19, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
Inquiry on edit | Removing signature from article space PROD notice
I'm not sure if the edit was done by you, personally; by a bot you manage; or by a non-bot program (CheckWiki?); apologies if I'm barking up the wrong tree by posting here.
I'm wondering if this isn't an incorrect edit ... I thought it was best practice to sign things like PROD and AfD notices (though not thinks like merge-to or almost all other cleanup/change-related article space hatnotes). Is it correct, under current norms, to not sign PROD postings? Thanks for the update in wiketiquete (likely spelled wrong).
(could you use {{ping}} or another bellring if you answer here? Thanks.)
Ceyockey A bot must have "bot" in its name. It says "Bgwhite" made the edit, therefore it was a manual edit. A sane, rational edit is a different story. CheckWiki scans for various problems in articles. It caught the article having a username in article space. Per WP:SIGNHERE, signatures do not go in article space. Nowhere at WP:PROD is a signature mentioned. AfD notices are not signed either, but the place where the discussion is taking place is signed. There are ~15 articles a day that contains a signature or a wikilink to user or draft space. There are a few cases where the article is talking about Wikipedia and does have a wikilink to User or Wikipedia space. Jimmy Wales and United States Congressional staff edits to Wikipedia are two cases. Bgwhite (talk) 04:43, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for looking into the page
Hi, I noticed that you had looked into the page I had been contributing to for a long time. A couple of days ago, I added some photos of a new park that had been built in our community and had deleted the text in which I stated that the park was "in development" because the park had been completed. When I came back to add another photo, I noticed that all my photos had been taken down for that section and the inaccurate fact that the park was in development had been put back up.
An editor just took down my photos and accused me of engaging in an editing war. Nothing could be further from the truth. I have tried to reach out to that editor and to develop and understanding of what I had done wrong, so I could improve the page. But he has chosen not to communicate with me. I was planning to make a special trip to the park to get some better quality photos of the park, but I have put that off. I think it would be good if we could collaborate rather than just deleting other people's work and accusing them waging an editing war. I thought the concept behind Wikipedia was that we people could contribute what they know and provide information and photos. It is my belief that is what made Wikipedia inherently better than an encyclopedia written and edited years ago in a place far away such as New York or London.
What do you think I should do? Should I continue to contribute or just give up? Is there anyone I could communicate with at Wikipedia to move forward and improve the page ?
Daveswikiacc Egads, I'd say they were very rude. You revert once and got yelled at. You were not in an edit war. You are not close to getting banned. However, they do have a point about the photographs. There are way too many photos in the article. Photos of the older buildings are nice, but multiple photos of playgrounds and skate parks are not. The only photos of the parks I'd keep would be the tree house and white house. I'd also keep the old photo of downtown Stanton and 1-2 images of the easement. Any more historical photos or very interesting photos? Bgwhite (talk) 05:07, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
Diacritical marks
Dear Bgwhite,
I saw you corrected some errors on the Lajos Gadoros page that I submitted yesterday. In one place you corrected "Dusseldorf" to "Düsseldorf," which of course is the correct spelling. But this compels me to wonder whether everything else should be corrected as well. My grandfather Lajos Gádoros was Hungarian, and most Hungarian names, acronyms, and words in general, include some sort of diacritical mark. I made a conscious effort to make the page easy to read for English speakers, but for the sake of accuracy, I did include the proper diacritical marks in the parenthesized comments as well as in the listing of his works, writings and the references themselves.
So if Düsseldorf must be spelled with its appropriate diacritical mark, should I then spell every Hungarian word with its appropriate accent?
Ferceze Diacritic and accent marks are a minefield. Everybody has their opinion and everybody does it differently. There have been people banned for getting to, um, Nazi like. However, you doing one page is not going to bring any wrath upon you and your house.
Dusseldorf -> Düsseldorf was done because that is how it is spelled on Wikipedia, see Düsseldorf.
For people, go with how he was spelled everyday or how he was spelled in sources. For example, the tennis player, Martina Navrátilová, has diacritics in her name. But, she is known as Martina Navratilova in the tennis world, so Wikipedia spells her name without diacritics.
For Lajos Gádoros, his work was done in Hungary. He was born and lived in Hungary. In the article, the references/exhibits that have web links show them using Lajos Gádoros. Therefore, I would use Lajos Gádoros. I've already moved the article to Lajos Gádoros. Bgwhite (talk) 00:50, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
Don's indefinite block
Hi Bgwhite,
Dontreader has shown me what has been done to him. He says that only you can help him at this point because you have always done what you believe is right. Even ArbCom ignored his letter entirely. Can ArbCom entirely ignore a complaint against an administrator written in a civil manner? Don would like to know. But it never should have gotten to that point. Isn't Don right when he says that formal warnings must be based on policy? He insists that DGG's conduct is absolutely indefensible. The warning was not rooted in policy. He also sees these words from BGG during the block as an arbitrary veiled threat:
"Nor have you in this appeal avoided mentioning the underlying subject or the names of you opponents."
Don says that there's nothing in the policies and guidelines that forbid merely mentioning an article subject or the names of the editors in a conflict. He also says that although your intentions were certainly the best, he feels that you accidentally undermined his position by claiming that "Your above statement about conspiracy theory and them dodging the question is one of the reasons you got blocked." Don says that his first block occurred before he wrote his conspiracy theory and before he accused another administrator of dodging a question. He strongly believes that his second (indefinite) block was caused by criticizing administrators who he believes were threatening him arbitrarily during the block, such as Drmies, who threatened him with an indefinite block for displaying "incompetence", and not because of violations of the conditions imposed during the warning. Don says that the rules allow him to criticize administrators, and to disagree with their decisions, including the imposition of the block. He says that an administrator cannot warn and block him for one reason, and then block him indefinitely for entirely different reasons. In his final statement, Don agreed to all the terms, despite being essentially arbitrary conditions (not grounded in policy), was gracious towards Rebbing, and was indefinitely blocked anyway, showing that DGG assumed bad faith in claiming that Don was an incorrigible menace to the community. DGG should have given Don an opportunity to show that he was telling the truth instead of assuming that he was lying. After all, DGG could have blocked him later had Don failed to comply with any of the terms, which Don himself said in his final message. DGG's rationale for the indefinite block was as senseless as disproportionate, according to Don. Here's what DGG said:
"You are clearly using your talk page in an attempt to evade the conditions you agreed to: you are continuing to discuss the article; you are continuing to comment on the other editors involved in it. This is harassment both of the article subject and of the other editors, and what you have been continuing to write shows that you are unlikely to ever stop this if you remain on WP. Preventing further harassment is a urgent matter with a very high priority, and must be enforced."
However, as you know, Don had agreed to all the conditions. Also, notice again that DGG stated above that "you are continuing to discuss the article; you are continuing to comment on the other editors involved in it. This is harassment both of the article subject and of the other editors,". Don knows that nothing in Wikipedia's policies and guidelines prevents him from discussing an article or from merely commenting on other editors. He says DGG cannot invent his own rules like a medieval king. There was no harassment during the block of the article subject, and Don did not harass the other editors either. Don believes that DGG blocked him indefinitely for harassing other administrators, but as pointed out earlier, some of them threatened him arbitrarily, which is much worse than harassment, and Don emphasizes that the reasons for a second (and INDEFINITE) block cannot be changed during the first block. The main thing to consider is that Don agreed to all the terms in his final message, yet he was blocked anyway due to a clear assumption of bad faith by DGG.
Don trusts you as much as he trusts close friends, and he urges you to help him. DGG cannot defend his decision, so Don believes you could ask him publicly on his page to either explain his decision or lift the block. There is no point in discussing the matter privately with him because a UTRS reviewing administrator was going to make Don an offer just a few hours after the UTRS appeal, but then he asked DGG for his opinion, and then Don never heard an offer. Therefore, Don believes that pressure should be put on DGG publicly to see if he can defend his actions, as Don knows that DGG's conduct is indefensible, but Don says you have more experience, and you might have other ideas. What matters to Don is that he knows he can trust you with doing what is right. He would have messaged you privately but that tool has been disabled on your page. Thanks in advance from the Netherlands. 82.169.106.93 (talk) 21:43, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
Don, the problem is you didn't drop the argument. I even asked you twice, you said you would and then you continued on with your arguments. In my last message, I said At this point, it doesn't matter what you say. If you continue, the only outcome will be you getting blocked for a longer period of time.. Unfortunately, that's what happened. I understand why DGG blocked you. I've been in the same situation once and they were blocked for not dropping the argument. Indefinite block does not mean permanent.
The way to get unblocked is straightforward:
Take some time off to cool down.
"Forget" about this ordeal, DGG and the article. It's easier said than done.
Ask to be unblocked and say you've dropped the matter and won't return to that page for awhile.
I've had friends who have been blocked for months who came back and are just fine. You will be fine. When you are ready to come back, give me a yell. Bgwhite (talk) 22:31, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
Looks like you message was deleted. I swear you had my email. I've opened up my email again. Send me a message and some good links to harp players. Bgwhite (talk) 00:57, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
I hate to bother you with something so trivial, but I find myself at the start of an edit war and have no interest in violating policy. Can you please take a look at Talk:Freedom City and the recent edit history, then take any action you feel is appropriate? Or let me know that I am in error and edumacate me real good. Thanks. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:17, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
Jonesey95, you are always welcome to ask any questions or leave any comment. My mother-in-law is having a lymph node biopsy this Tuesday. I hoping for the best... a soon-to-be funeral. But, I'm afraid any cancer can't survive in pure evil. Bgwhite (talk) 21:32, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
He looked at it alright. He demanded I not change anything, accused me of disruption and when I asked for explanations, locked the article. Some resolution. Must restore article (talk) 18:20, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
I noticed that you reverted my changes on the wikipedia page for the Assembly of European Regions, including a lot of content I created for the wikipedia though research and that was pending to find sources for. It was done through a bot and it mentioned that it was content copied from our website, which is not accurate. Would it be possible to revert the changes? I am a very new user and learning how to work on Wikipedia, so don't hesitate to explain what I did wrong and how can I do better next time. And what is the solution for the page in question. ---- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaveri miguel (talk • contribs) 06:39, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
Kaveri miguel The problem is some of the content was copied from the AER website. I checked it myself. That material can't be added back in. You can add any of the content that wasn't copied, but it would be a really good idea to add sources for it. Another option is to copy the article into your sandbox. You can play around with it and when it it's finished, copy it back to the article. I can help copying it to your sandbox. Bgwhite (talk) 06:54, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
I created the content of the history of the organisation using several sources, such as the previous information from the website but also researching on the archives of the AER and the information about the AER on other institutions (especially from the early years).Then this content was also used for the AER website since it was more complete than the previous version. So it is not the wikipedia article who copied the website but the opposite. --Kaveri miguel (talk) 09:23, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
Kaveri miguel Let me go over the article and what you've written more closely. If I find some questionable statement, we both can review them. I'll have a look at it my tomorrow. I work on a GMT+10 schedule. Bgwhite (talk) 21:39, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
Bgwhite Most of the sections in your list I think they were in the page before I started editing it. I agree that there are sections that clearly do not belong to the wikipedia page (such as the how to join the AER) but the history, the list of former presidents, the founding regions, the mission and values are information that help people understand what the organization was created for and what has been its contribution to the construction of the European project. As I said I am here to learn, so can you please help me understand what is the way I can add this information to the page without it being removed becuase it is ust a copy? Is it good enough if I reference the parts that are literal from the AER materials (because you cannot reword things such as missions, values or principles of an organisation)?. Kaveri miguel (talk) 07:11, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
This removal of reference was a bit careless on your side – whoever put it obviously mis-copied the URL from the wrong browser tab, as it still had a valid website= parameter. Consider yourself minnowed. On the plus side, I tracked the original source and used it to update the article figures. Regards. No such user (talk) 11:53, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
Ronnie O'Sullivan
Hi, you've twice changed Ronnie O'Sullivan to Ronnie O'sullivan. This dosn't match the sources or things like there own Twitter. Also I've never seen any O'Sullivan or other simlar Irish names not have the first leter after O' being capital (such as O'Brian or O'Malley). Is this caused by a faulty rule? Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 16:22, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
Hello Bgwhite. I'm quite new to AWB. Could you explain to me how I can do CheckWiki fixes? Do you do it manually or is there a script? Thanks, Dat GuyTalkContribs08:26, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
DatGuy There are bots that take care of many errors, though it may not fix all errors for a given article. If you look at this page, it will tell what AWB can and can't do. There's a column for which bot runs on which error. So, pick any of the other errors to work on. A few, #10, #43 and #47, the bot will fix about 1/2. If you see those errors with alot fixed, then the bot ran on them and the rest needs to be fixed manually. On the right hand side, there is a column called "Last scan". It show errors that have or haven't been fixed from the last dump. Currently there are two errors left, #28 and #90. Those also need to be fixed manually. We changed how/what we detect on those two errors, so it picked up a tonne of new articles that it didn't find in the past. I usually work everyday from 4z to 9z, except Sundays. Some days I fix them all, other days I don't get close. Magioladitis works from 6z to 9z for 4-5 days a week. Do what you can. Any help is much appreciated. Bgwhite (talk) 04:46, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
Northamerica1000 AWB had nothing to do with it. It was a manual edit. I removed it because it was a self-published book in which Voltre is listed as a contributor, though the book came out after his death. Not an independent or reliable source. I was also debating an AfD as there are only 11 hits for him on Google. As it was an obscure topic before the internet, I decided not to pursue it. Bgwhite (talk) 18:22, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation. I thought it may have occurred because of the way the source was formatted with <ref> markup. I restored the source in the process, which I cannot access, so I'll leave it up to you to remove it again if you'd like. Thanks again, North America100023:40, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
I haven't researched the potential notability of the subject at this time, which is something I always do before considering a deletion nomination. North America100016:55, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
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
The ORES review tool is now available on Special:Contributions as a beta feature. It can make it easier to find contributions that are probably damaging the wikis. The ORES review tool is available on Wikidata and Persian, Polish, Portuguese, Dutch, Turkish and Russian Wikipedia. [25]
The norm and ccnorm functions have been updated to make it easier to write abuse filters. This also affects the TitleBlacklist extension. You don't have to transform "I" and "L" to "1", "O" to "0" and "S" to "5" anymore. [26]
The old pageview data in the "pagecounts-raw" and "pagecounts-all-sites" files is no longer being updated. You can find the new pageview data here. This happened on August 5. [27]
Problems
Some big image files could not be thumbnailed. This has now been fixed. [28]
When you moved a page over a redirect it would delete the redirect without saving it in the logs. This has now been fixed. [29]
Changes this week
The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 23 August. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 24 August. It will be on all wikis from 25 August (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 23 August at 19:00 (UTC). See how to join.
Future changes
Sometimes when you mention another user they don't get a notification. You will be able to get a notification when you successfully sent out a mention to someone or be told if they did not get a notification. This will be opt-in. You can test this on the test wiki. [30][31]
How you add text after an edit conflict might work in a different way in the future. You can test the prototype. [32]
First thank you for time you spent on the page and your comment.
I have drastically simplify the article, I will update it as soon as I get more details and references.
Waiting for this, on the simplify version, is possible to inactivate the warnings?
Igorak I did some more editing and removed two tags (ie warnings). The sooner you can add more refs, the better. Feel free to ask for help anytime. Bgwhite (talk) 21:59, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
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
Wikimedia mobile sites now don't load images if the user doesn't see them. This is to save mobile data and make the pages load faster. [33]
When you edit a table with the visual editor, pressing Tab in the last cell of a row will take you to the first cell in the next row. Pressing Shift and Tab in the first cell of a row will take you to the last cell in the previous row. [34]
Changes this week
The name of the "Save page" button will change. The button will say "Publish page" when you create a new page. It will say "Publish changes" when you change an existing page. [35][36]
The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 30 August. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 31 August. It will be on all wikis from 1 September (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 30 August at 19:00 (UTC). See how to join.
What exactly do you know about Mandatory Work Activity Ronnie O'Sullivan fan and why did you change the updated entry? I added the Appeal Court ruling as a link and not having Asberger's or being a pedant who spends their whole life fiddling with Wikipedia entries, it took ages to enter all the extremely fiddly code to not get error messages in the reference section. So claiming the Appeal Court document is an "unreliable" source is ridiculous, and very annoying. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Travis Knightley Wallace (talk • contribs) 01:59, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
Can you explain the unexplainable?
Hey. It's been a while. I hope you've been having a good summer.
Mandarax, who are you again? I vaguely remember you like going to the Nevadan desert, cooking meth and looking at men burning. JJMC89 is correct and that probably is it. The message says it will take 24 hours to complete, but 12 hours ago, it wasn't even 40% complete. Bgwhite (talk) 05:39, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
Many thanks to both of you!Ah, an interesting juxtaposition. Bryan Cranston, as Malcolm's father Hal, went to the desert for Burning Man. Then, as Walter, he cooked meth in the desert, and ordered a hit which was done by burning the man in his prison cell. MANdARAX•XAЯAbИAM06:09, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
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
Word-level diffs now work in longer paragraphs. [37]
Interactive maps now have a frame by default. This is to make them look like other multimedia objects. This affects all Wikivoyages, the Catalan, Hebrew, Macedonian Wikipedias and Meta. [38]
When you preview the MediaWiki:Captcha-ip-whitelist page it will show a validation output of the listed IP addresses instead of the list of addresses only. This can help you to identify if your whitelist rules will work or not. [39]
Changes this week
You will be able to use <maplink> on all Wikipedias. It creates a link to a full screen map. [40][41]
Sometimes when you mention another user they don't get a notification. You will be able to get a notification when you successfully send out a mention to someone or be told if they did not get a notification. This will be opt-in. [42][43]
The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 6 September. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 7 September. It will be on all wikis from 8 September (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 6 September at 19:00 (UTC). See how to join.
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that some edits performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. They are as follows:
In early August (2016), you used AWB to unlink a number of dates in 2005. The ones in the Deaths section are supposed to be there per WP:YEARS, and specfically allowed in WP:DATELINK. Please correct your edit. (I checked the talk pages for the article and both project guidelines, and there have been no changes.) — Arthur Rubin(talk)21:42, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
I explained the square brackets around the publication year here: "as written: the date is in square brackets because it is in square brackets in the secondary source linked to, indicating that no date is printed in the score publication, but that the secondary source derives the date from elsewhere" and put an {{as written}} tag around it.
Hi-- you removed a reference there. I wasn't using that Wikipedia article as actual reference. The information was told in a PBS documentary. I see no other way to give a link to that. Mikadoo (talk) 02:26, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
Hi! I am a COI editor working for a PR firm engaged by Thorsten Heins. I have prepared a new draft of his article that corrects a few errors and adds substantially more detail. Would you be willing to review my draft and make the copy go live if you feel it is constructive? The copy is in my sandbox. You can see it here [45]. Please let me know what you think. Thanks. Zooooooooom! COI (talk) 14:40, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
Tracerzoom1973 Overall, your version is better than what is currently up. Could you add how he was named one of the worst CEOs of 2013. Also add a little more about why things went bad at BlackBerry during his tenure. While Heins becoming CEO of BlackBerry would be equivalent to him becoming the captain of the Titanic right after it hit the iceberg, Heins did make mistakes.
There is a line about an award Thorsten won and his ranking as one of the "worst CEOs." I will put that back in. I will try to find more detail on his tenure at BlackBerry.Zooooooooom! COI (talk) 09:24, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
