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.
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 Wikimedia Commons app for Android can now show nearby places that need photos. [1]
The RevisionSlider will be available as a beta feature on all wikis from 13 September. This will make it easier to navigate between diffs in the page history. [4]
A new user right will allow most users to change the content model of pages. [5][6]
The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 13 September. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 14 September. It will be on all wikis from 15 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 13 September at 19:00 (UTC). See how to join.
Future changes
When you search on the Wikimedia wikis in the future you could see results from sister projects in your language. You can read more and discuss how this could work.
Hello Bgwhite, Me-123567-Me has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing! Me-123567-Me (talk) 20:44, 14 September 2016 (UTC) Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Reference errors on 14 September
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:
Hi there -- I'm mystified why you reversed most (all?) of the changes I made to Iyami Aje, and made some others. My changes reduced the number of flagged errors, yours not only restored those errors but created some new ones (e.g., turning a correct URL and ISBN into invalid ones). I've reverted your update, since I didn't see anything of value in it in a cursory glance, but if you can explain what you had in mind, maybe we can meet in the middle somehow. --Floatjon (talk) 06:55, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
Floatjon I saw your revert before this message and said, "Why in the hell did I do that?" I don't know remember why I edited it. I was fixing ISBN errors from a list (|isbn=5 800104480358), but you had already fixed it in the article. I edited it with AWB. I see "ressurecting" with wrong spelling, a "the the" and a Google book link to be shortened. I probably fixed those and saved. Every once in awhile, if AWB is saving while a connection is reset, gobbledygook ends up in the article. What's weird is the edit summary is "ce". I only do that manually, but the bad edit was done with AWB. Magioladitis, can you see any rhyme or reason? 07:27, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
Doc James Egads, I left a message on the talk page. As I said on the talk page, the template seems to be broke and Wikipedia cannot be used as a reference per MOS. Bgwhite (talk) 21:16, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
PS: "MUTT" was neither an actual name, nor a contemporaneous nickname, so I re-fixed, or de-fixed that. The M151 article no longer has any mongrels in it. Anmccaff (talk) 06:13, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
Interesting, Magioladitis. Since I still had to add them in the Wikibook project last year (when working that heavily). Actually spent a fair amount of time coding 'a few templates' that could auto-convert spaces to underscores when sections were the target of the term. (See these: Glossary and List of Notations there. Both are used extensively using a section link to cut down explanations during a related tutorial. Given the underlying code is probably automatically translated converting same for the needs of linking, the type of edit is still likely to be backwards and counter-productive. At least speaking as a computer engineer it raises my eyebrows! Similarly, IMHO, expanding {{cn}} to {{Citation needed}} is very undesirable for the opposite reason since it adds clutter to the text--parsing the text to keep meaning/comprehension and make useful phrasing reconstructions and inserts just becomes more difficult with such clutter. But that's a matter of taste. Best regards, FrankB12:50, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
Ahem, again
Hi again, Magioladitis. On the above, note what happens inside a link in an url--the underscores are the outcome of having a space, so why change? NOT why I'm visiting today...
replacing html to be converted with a template call ...
knowing template coding is translated into wikimarkup + into html ...
so will later (in every preview and page save) need server processing cycles and expansion sub-routines ...
All software processing which just returns an equivalent HTML/CSS command line.
So how is this needless change the least beneficial or worth the memory space and processor time it takes on the servers. If I were your boss evaluating your performance, I'd suggest a negative salary increase for the pay cycle. You're totally ignoring inefficiencies!
I think anyone running a bot has a moral responsibility to ensure your application is not needlessly changing pages. Admittedly, I'm more a hardware design guy, but don't see why this change is being made, especially since Wiki-markups system programmers are and always have been very careful (though I no longer follow those discussion streams either) to handle legacy HTML permissible code strings.
If these aren't equivalent, please tell me why:
Form sent my browser by your version/change
<div style="clear:left;"></div>
by my hand coding
<br clear="left"></br>
As expected, the code/form sent to my browser (IIRC, "<br clear=left>" had once been in one of the common templates from a switch parameter.)
(It's been a few years since I played in templates outside occasional Wikibooks needs!). So I wonder, are you too focused in some academia viewpoint wherein one thinks there is some authority that justifies such judgements or the real world where people actually make things happen and get the job done. Granted some things that were past practice occasionally need changed, but this sort of thing... waste of time. CSS/HTL is a mature technology. It's not going to modify such elementary functionalities at any conceivable date going forwards. I don't see any unnecessary change as anything beneficial, how about you? // FrankB17:45, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
Fabartus nice to hear from you again.I think the reasons we do this are:
We wont as less HTML code as possible. Maybe in some years where the Visual Editor will produce HTML output directly is not a problem but now having a mixed code of wikicode and html is ugly.
The use of div is better than br for some reasons (Bgwite explain perhaps?)
Wanting as little HTML as possible — when that is the end product, seems like shoveling the ocean with a fork. But thanks for the answers, Magioladitis. Not a user or fan of the visual editor, so that 'ugly' is just situation normal to me in coding of any kind. 'Course, there were some years when I worked a week (for pay!) to cut 15-18 BYTES out of Assembler/Machine Code, so any modern code is pretty handsome to me! I can remember when a Macro Assembler and, some years later, visual editors and integrated development systems were new tech. Having one worth the time on the wiki might be useful... but not if it hides more primitive code. Sometimes it's best to resort to a mix of markup and HTML tags. Did something yesterday (See the grouping of features on the same Broad Mountain) which would have been far faster had I done so.
(I think the BR vs DIV 'choice' is a philosophical bias of sorts. There is one camp thinking everything in HTML should have an end tag so you have tag-action/data-tag always. Call it a school of thought and style. The <ref name=Something /> construction must drive those people NUTS! LOL TTFN FrankB19:43, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
The construct <br clear="left"></br> is invalid HTML (because the specification for the br element states "No end tag"). It is valid XHTML (although it is explicitly discouraged in the XHTML spec), but Wikipedia has not served XHTML for several years now, since we switched to HTML5. The clear= attribute is obsolete in HTML5 (and was deprecated in HTML 4), but the style= attribute is valid in all versions since HTML 4, so a better construct would be <br style="clear:left;" />, which is valid in both XHTML and HTML5; <div style="clear:left;"></div> is also valid in both, but I see no reason why the {{clear left}} template cannot be used instead of all of these. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:17, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
Hey there Redrose64 - me thinks you missed the question we started with. The query was why they substituted a macro (template) that the server then needed to translate back to HTML. Look at the diff I linked, this section top. The two results, one you say is invalid, is the code my firefox browser says was the streamed source code received here, both before and after their BOT changed things. As far as XML/HTML4, 5 or twenty, I could care less. The query was why make a conversion that creates more overhead. That it also junks up the history and takes another bit of hard drive space to reserve and save the previous and updated version I also find offensive as an engineer. Rather like Mr. Spock telling a joke. Not my nature as an engineer! LOL. Your answer however probably gives the reason behind the reason... that the "clear=left" construct is broken by convention. Damn Academics strike again. Think I have time to type all that extra overhead. Arrogant elitist idiots. If it works, don't break it! FrankB04:16, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
Templates are preferable to direct use of HTML for several reasons, first because it keeps the page entirely in Wikimarkup, so that our editors only need to learn one system. Not all of us are familiar with HTML (fewer are familiar with CSS), and for many, editing a Wikipedia page may well be the very first experience that they've had in making a Web page - we should expect them to learn template basics at the very least, so that they will know now much to remove when they replace {{citation needed|date=September 2016}} with a ref. Another reason is that the HTML and CSS specs do periodically change (the clear=left attribute was perfectly valid in HTML 3.2), and browser vendors are not under an obligation to support features that have been marked as obsolete; when such changes occur, it's much easier to update one template than thousands of individual articles. Third, templates are almost always shorter, therefore quicker to type: {{clear|left}} and {{clear left}} are both 14 characters (and can be reduced to 13 by going through the redirect {{clearleft}}), whereas <br clear=left> (the shortest possible HTML form, albeit with an obsolete attribute) is 15. Making this non-obsolete but still as short as poss, as with <br style="clear:left">, raises it to 23 chars.
I want to tell u about u r last edit on Chi La Sow Sravanthi that u restored the SPD tag which previously deleted by me ..I removed that SPD tag by informing to the person who added that tag .He left a msg on my talk page that if I complete the update edit i can remove the tag so I removed the tag .But u restored the tag don't do that again .. If u want to say any thing please leave a msg on my talk page Joshq1234 (talk) 09:09, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
Viking metal edits
This edit undid something that I put in the Viking metal article intentionally. The website listed discusses the Viking metal article as it stood in mid-2012, which was very different than the article as it stands now. I listed the link with an oldid so that the reader can read that version of the article and understand what the author of the blog post is talking about.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 22:28, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
Why???
Why would you even think about editing the title of an article from another publication used in a reference citation??? If the Alton Telegraph prints "COLLEGE MEN's SOCCER", then the reference is NOT "COLLEGE MEN'S SOCCER"; it IS "COLLEGE MEN's SOCCER" despite the typo... GWFrog (talk) 20:21, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
GWFrog I made ~15 changes in the article including fixing a broken {{yel}} template ( {{yel}}76}} to {{yel|76}}) and changing single quotes per MOS. You reverted me saying "reverted---titles given as used in cited publications". You obviously never read my edit summary or you would have fixed the template problem with the revert. As I made alot changes to single quotes in titles, I can only assume you objected to that. You never said specifically what is wrong. You also don't revert ~15 changes for something "little" that can be fixed manually or by fixing what was wrong to begin with via the revert.
I'm new to Wikipedia and trying to find my way around with everything. I don't even know how to direct respond to your message on my talk page?? I honestly do not understand what you mean, could you please help me? Because when I put them in this morning they were all just plain links to websites and they all worked. If I undo the changes, could you please show me example of links that 'do nothing' and 'go nowhere'? I really want to fix this, something must have happened to it during editing. Everything 'went somewhere' when I was editing. Could you show me what you mean if I undo? — Preceding unsigned comment added by CS-HIST3002 (talk • contribs) 04:58, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
Okay, I have no idea why it would change to that, I assure you I am referencing everything properly when I am editing. Do you think its because I'm using the visual editor which is only in beta mode? I was unaware that wikipedia was an unreliable source for other wikipedia articles, I will amend that. Shortly I'm going to undo the changes and edit them again. I will try to find all of the 'fake' references and work out how to fix them. If you look at the reference list down the bottom of the page, you'll see that all the links are legit. Please leave my work undone while I try to fix this, I will be a prompt as I can. Thanks! CS-HIST3002 (talk) 05:28, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
Updated: Australia at 2002 Winter Paralympics Page
I've removed all of the wikipedia related references. Now, when I mouse over them there are no [20] type references, on my end they seem to be fine. I do remember seeing a couple of those when I edited a few days ago and wondering why they were there - I certainly didn't put them in myself. On your end, can you see any 'fake' references? If so, please don't undo, just let me know which ones/where and I'll... well I don't quite know what I'll do as they are all looking normal for me. Thank you for helping me, I really hope they look alright on your end. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CS-HIST3002 (talk • contribs) 06:25, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
CS-HIST3002 There were a couple of bad refs, but they were fixed when I "combined" some of the refs. You can combine the rest.
I'd change the table with the American newspapers listed, if the source has other papers. Americans just don't care about the Paralympics. Keep a couple, but add some Australian papers and some from Winter Olympic countries from Europe. Bgwhite (talk) 06:50, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
When you say 'combine' are you referring to condensing the number of sources with the same name in the reference list? I can't see which ones are 'bad' and which aren't, for some annoying reason. I'm leaving for a few days now but I'll combine some sources and have a go at finding Australian newspapers when I get back. Thank you for your help, I do appreciate it. CS-HIST3002 (talk) 07:21, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
Yes that is what I mean about combining. See WP:REFNAME. I fixed the ones that were bad by combining... you had url=Salt Lake Olympics or something like that. Bgwhite (talk) 07:26, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
@Darth Tacker: It's a deliberate typo, much like people write "tyop" or "tpyo" instead of "typo". Starting with "broken", the second and third letters are exchanged, and the terminal "n" is changed to "d"; the last change makes it more like other English regular verbs (but English doesn't have any regular verbs...). --Redrose64 (talk) 20:02, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
Update : Veniam page
I am sorry to see that you deleted all of my work on that page of my company that took me hours to do. Could you please explain me the reasons? I will try my best to correct what I've done and to be able to publish it please.
Many thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ebrithil5 (talk • contribs) 16:36, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
I think Jonesey95 has a point. If you can remember where you learned about the awards, you should be able to cite it, as long as it is verifiable/reliable. Primary sources are acceptable in some cases, but secondary and tertiary sources are recommended. To cite a source, type in or paste the URL of the source you wish to cite and put <ref> before the URL and </ref> after the URL, like this; <ref>http://www.example.com</ref>. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia containing verifiable facts written from a neutral point of view with no original research, so we citereiliable sources to support any assertions on the articles. — Darth Tacker (talk • contribs) 22:19, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
I'm in a call right now that's talking about the end of Tidy.js (months from now), so I can't talk much right now. This will break some wikitext (well, it will stop unfixing some broken code). Have you followed any of this? mw:Parsing/Replacing Tidy has a list of some of the expected changes. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 16:05, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
Jonesey alerted me about the self closing tags. This is now checked for in CheckWiki and there is also a maintenance category.
The <p> issue should not be a problem in articles. There are only 10 articles that use them.
The <li> issue should be minimal. We've already removed most of them. However, there are still articles with <li> laying around, mostly with lists needing to start at a different number besides 1. I'm not sure how many articles, but 500 on the low end guess.
Some wikitext markup errors are detected. We were told about <sup> and <sub> causing problems when there is no closing tag. We also look for <math>, <pre>, <nowiki>, <code> and comment tags not having a closing tag. We don't check for <small> or the other table issues. I have a feeling the small issue would apply to <center>. Oi vey, that would take years to cleanup and untold people yelling.
Not sure what to say about Trailing whitespace migration
We also check for unclosed tables and <i> tags. Only one article uses <i>. We don't check tables when the beginning or ending part of the table is a template. Bgwhite (talk) 21:31, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
If we can set up checks for them and have clear explanations of how to fix the errors, gnomes will be able to fix them. It looks like we have checks for most of them. It will take time, certainly, so we'll need plenty of advance notice.
Wikipedia:CHECKWIKI/WPC 100 dump, which checks for problematic <li> tags, has 3,400 pages listed, and it looks like it covers only mainspace. I expect that pages in other namespaces will break also, so we'll need to fix those as well.
I am more concerned about other WPs; do they have gnome/maintenance communities that are at least as active as we have at en.WP? – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:33, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
One case that I've thought of. The HTML line break tag <br> and its XHTML-compatible variant <br /> (spaced or unspaced) are extremely common, and all equally valid in HTML5; but a significant number of people use the </br> tag instead of these, either by mistake or because they don't realise that the positioning of the slash is important. At the moment, Tidy converts all of these to <br />, so </br> currently yields a line break; but once Tidy is gone, those misconstructed line breaks will stop working. --Redrose64 (talk) 07:57, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
There may not have been any instances of </br> when you checked, but I have certainly come across some in the last month. Uses of the </br> tag won't show in Category:Pages using invalid self-closed HTML tags because </br> is not a self-closed tag, for which the syntax is always either <tagname /> or </tagname />, the spaces being optional. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:17, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
Redrose64 for <tagname /> or </tagname />, CheckWiki is checking for (in theory): abbr b br big blockquote center cite del div em font i p s small span strike sub sup td th tr tt u
By "it" I mean the specific tag </br>. I've amended my last post accordingly. The tags that should be checked are any HTML tag that is not specifically described as a void element. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:18, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
Redrose64, I made one or two possible errors above. First, I should have linked to Wikipedia:CHECKWIKI/WPC 002 dump in my comment above. That is the page where </br> errors were listed, at least in mainspace. I don't know if it checks other namespaces (my second possible error in generalizing that there are no errors left). If it does not, someone will need to run that report on all namespaces if this errant closed tag something we need to fix. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:42, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
@Redrose64 and Jonesey95:, currently WPC only checks for main space, not the other namespaces, but I can add the option. After that, I will probably need someone to run the analysis: I'm often traveling with not so good internet connection, and downloading the 13G for pages-articles.xml.bz2 is already very difficult, but I'm not sure it contains all namespaces, so I will pass on downloading a bigger file... --NicoV(Talk on frwiki)06:52, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
@NicoV and Magioladitis:, CW #55 only checks if there are two small tags in a row, ie <small><small>text. I can add a check for finding more opening tags than closing tags. Magioladitis, you have been the one fixing #55 for awhile, add check in #55 or new error? Bgwhite (talk) 18:43, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
Whatamidoing (WMF) It's an accessibility error. Text can't be smaller than 85%, which is what one small tag does. Also check if there is a small tag in an image description. The description is already small Bgwhite (talk) 07:56, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Jonesey95 (or anyone else): How much time do you think enwiki (specifically) needs to prepare for this? This is definitely not happening until next year (i.e., some time in 2017), but I don't know how early in 2017 it might be possible.
Most small Wikipedias (let's say that's 75% of them) have few or no gnomes and essentially no technical resources. On the other hand, they also don't have a hundred different sets of templates for creating tables, or six different sets of column-faking templates that can produce open divs or unclosed tables, so the problems may be fewer. Beyond the Wikipedias, I'm primarily worried about the Wikisources. They've got some amazing tech-oriented volunteers, but they've also got lots of templates and lots of appearance-related effects. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 03:50, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Re the timeline: I think that posting this information at VPT will elicit some useful feedback on timing (and some freaking out, some of which may be valid). One thing that occurs to me is that maintenance categories, which we use to find and fix problems of this sort, can take a long time, sometimes months(!), to be populated with all pages that have the relevant condition. This long-standing bug really needs to be fixed (or worked around) if we are to be able to find and fix problems before Tidy is replaced with another tool. See my most recent posting at VPT for details. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:16, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
Redrose64 If it hadn't been fixed, the article should show up on CheckWiki error #2 when CheckWiki starts processing at 0z. Yesterday's run caught 19 cases of </br> along with some <small />, <center /> and other bad br tags (<br [[Tanzinia]]). It should also show up in the maintenance category. Bgwhite (talk) 22:43, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
That "self-closed" category catches only errors of the form <tagname />, not </tagname>, as far as I know. I do not know of a tool that is capturing the latter outside of main space. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:32, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
Nyuszika7H References go right after punctuation with no intervening space. There should be no multiple blank lines between paragraphs or content. This is an AWB bot and it follow MOS, so all AWB bots will do the same thing. Bgwhite (talk) 23:23, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
Well, this is kind of a special/unusual case for references, a space is logical there, and the blank line is there to have proper visual separation, but it may be better to explain it in prose and put the ref after that to avoid this issue. nyuszika7h (talk) 23:30, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
The editor added copy-vio material on the article Lola Bessis. They are uploading copyrighted picture. The article has notability. I have removed the copy vios from the article. You can warn the user for copy pasting contents from IMDB, instead of nominating it for speedy-deletion. --Moonstone ray (talk) 15:20, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
Semi-automated edits and piped dab links in hatnotes
Hi, sorry I didn't leave an edit summary. I find that reverting a semi-automated edit usually should be enough as an invitation for the editor to have a closer look, as I thought it was obvious: here you moved an html comment away from the bit of wikitext it was relevant for. Maybe you could modify your tools so that they don't do that in future?
As for the piped link: what exactly is wrong with it? True, links to disambiguation pages should almost always be marked up as such, even in hatnotes, but when it comes to the ones of the {{distinguish}} type, I find it that the explicit disambiguator doesn't really fit much with the text of the note. "Not to be confused with..." sets the expectation that what follows will be a topic or a concept, rather than an exact title for a wikipedia article, together with its parenthetical paraphernalia. Uanfala (talk) 09:13, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
Uanfala I cannot read minds. When you revert an edit without an edit summary, I have no idea what you are objecting to. You are not using a piped link. You are using the magic word{{!}} inside a wikilink where it doesn't belong. My first edit summary was "Pipe magicword in wikilink" and my second edit summary was about it too. Editors get confused about magic words, which appears to be your case too. There are maintence categories and other ways to find and remove the magic words where they are not appropriate. Unfortunately, Visual Editor adds 95% of them. If you don't like the comment edit, that's fine, just move it back. Bgwhite (talk) 20:54, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, I thought a misplaced html comment was a plainly obvious thing. Anyway, as for the magic word, this is the only way I know for piping a link inside a template. Why is that a bad idea and is there an alternative? Uanfala (talk) 20:59, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
Uanfala Well, my wife often complains about the dirty walls in the house. Everything she says goes over my head and sticks to the wall. You were using the {{Distinguish2}} template. This template only has one argument, thus the magicword isn't needed. For other hatnote templates, the magicword maybe the only way to go. Bgwhite (talk) 21:25, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
I asked you to please justify the removal of the images of notable Afro-Puerto Ricans in the articles "talk page". Remember, the article does not belong to anybody and Wikipedia is is not about what we like or do not like. Since you did respond to my request, I have taken the liberty of asking you here, what do you have against the images of notable Afro-Puerto Ricans in the infobox? Tony the Marine (talk) 02:11, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
Marine 69-71 I stated in my edit summary, "MOS:NOETHNICGALLERIES Try reading it. Its relatively new." Iryna Harpy stated in her edit summary, "Sorry, but it's not an option per WP:NOETHNICGALLERIES" Apparently, you have refused to read it. Therefore, let me quote it to you, Articles about ethnic groups or similarly large human populations should not be illustrated by a photomontage or gallery of images of group members; see this RfC. The RFC.
You are the one who recently added the gallery. You have reverted multiple people. You are the one who is showing ownership issues and remember, Wikipedia is not about what we like or do not like. Drop the racist overtones of why you think the gallery is being removed. Not only is that against "assume good faith", it is an insult towards Iryna Harpy and me. Bgwhite (talk) 04:55, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
Hum, point well taken and in good faith. There have been so many racist issues going on here in the United States that you never know what may go on elsewhere. However, you and Iryna Harpy are clearly not the case and that is not an issue. Thank you truly for your response, it was most informative and welcomed. Take care. Tony the Marine (talk) 16:41, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
Hi there, I just wanted to clarify that had re-added the <p> tag as your removal of it had merged the two paragraphs, which I assume would not be true to the original text being quoted. Thankfully, it looks like your second attempt removed the <p> tag while solving the paragraph issue. Obviously I have no reason to continue "adding it back in" now that you have changed the code in such a way that does not harm the output and I don't appreciate the curtness. Regards, 207.161.217.209 (talk) 05:27, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
Reference errors on 5 October
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that some edits performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. They are as follows:
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that some edits performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. They are as follows:
Greetings.
This is Siva Krishna Kogili, who created the page "The Symbol of Creator". Today I have added WIKI reference links for BhagavadGita, Bible, Quran and Revalation bible.
But those are removed. For me this is the first article. But this information I have provided is very useful and it is being taught by Sri Acharya Prabodhananda Yogeeshwar [Ananthapur district, Andhra Pradesh state, INDIA] from past 40 years.
The below is the official website with more than 80 books in different languages and more than 108 speeches on "The Thraitha Theorem" and on this "Symbol of Creator".
Sivakrishnakogili You were using Wikipedia as a reference. Anybody can edit Wikipedia, thus anybody can add false information. In these cases you need to create a wikilink by using brackets. For example [[Bhagavad Gita]] becomes Bhagavad Gita. References have to come from reliable sources. Newspapers and books are examples. See WP:RELIABLE for more information. Every time I here of Atlanta, I always think back to when I lived in Georgia. Bgwhite (talk) 04:54, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
Can you do me a favour.
Hi Bgwhite, can you do a check user on Mukherjee 831001. He has been moving and creating Serampore related pages, adding copyrighted images, and just being a general nuisance. Sound familiar? I suspect that he a sock of you know who. Sounds like a duck to me. I have been spending a lot of time researching to make sure that I get the names and histories of the area's constituencies correct using reliable and cited references, and the he comes along a mucks it all up. This was after I corrected his mistakes during his previous socking efforts. Cheers. David.moreno7214:26, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
Hi, Recently I posted Bhaarat Today article and today saw you tagged it for clean up. Wish to know why its tagged as such, I have not seen any suggestions either. Thanks in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pskeshav (talk • contribs) 10:40, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
Pskeshav I didn't tag the article. It was put there on your first edit. Every new article has to be reviewed. Tag is there saying it hasn't been reviewed yet. I did remove a reference. Wikipedia can't be used as a reference. There are some minor things with the article, but nothing serious, but I just fixed them. Bgwhite (talk) 22:50, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
checkwiki #90
Thank you for the thankless job of fixing minor wikipedia errors. Unfortunately it seems that your edit was not a correct for. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Check Wikipedia/List of errors, #90. Instead of deleting the ext link you have to convert into internal one.
In the case your intention was to actually delete the ext link, you have to provide the correct edit summary, so that other wikipedians know that it was an intentional edit rather that a keyboard slip. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:47, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
Staszek Lem My edit summary stands. Wikipedia being used as a reference or external link. The situation dictates if I delete it, convert it or something else. After removing some 10,000 of these links, I can't recall a complaint about this. I do have people asking why Wikipedia cannot be used as a ref or why a ref wasn't kept (see below). It is pretty obvious to any non-newbie editor why 99.9% are deleted. Bgwhite (talk) 04:54, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
In this particular case I it is not that evident it must be deleted, that's why I was asking. In disambig pages it is pretty common "See also" to contain {{Look from}}. In this particular case i find it useful. Therefore instead of deleting you should have replaced it with {{Look from}}, especially if you don't have enough time to look into detail. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:47, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
Still, they reasonably complement the disambig page. The latter ones, being manually updated, are not always up-to-date. In this particular case, google search "faggot site:en.wikipedia.org" gives over 2,000 hits, which is less helpful is I want to find, say Freaks, Faggots, Drunks and Junkies. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:07, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
Kutton
Hi Bg white, I am Sampada Malla, Creative producer from Kerry on Kutton. I do not understand why you are regularly changing the stuffs I write. For refernces, you can check the IMDB page of Kerry on Kutton; which clearly states that what you are deleting has no sense. Also, the whole paragraph that I had written has been deleted, which states the IMDB ratings as well as the celebrities quoting about Kerry on Kutton. I really do not understand why you are doing this. Please do let me know, and if so, please do research about the contents you are deleting; before you make any changes. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sampadamalla1 (talk • contribs) 07:36, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
Sampadamalla1 Stop vandalising the page. Look at the article before you edit it and after you edit it. You will notice a HUGE difference. IMDb is not a reliable source. It's just like Wikipedia, anybody can edit it. Anybody can write anything, both true and false, in IMDb and Wikipedia. Ratings on IMDb also don't count, just like other web based polls. Anybody can vote for how many times they want. Bgwhite (talk) 08:13, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
so do you mean to say that you are a reliable source ? Sorry; but was just trying to get an idea as you are a revered source. For your information, I am a part of the movie and you are not; so how can you be a reliable source? Please do check all the movie links, and you will find my name there along with all the credible information I have added. It is a big waste of your time and mine, but editing and reediting. So, please stop vandalizing the page. Because you are a revered personality in wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sampadamalla1 (talk • contribs) 08:58, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
Hi Bgwhite. You made an edit to the Post-Britpop article today using AWB. I'm not sure if it was you or the AWB, but some of the cites were re-organised during the edit. It's not clear why this was done, or if it is an error in AWB, but it altered the logical sequence. See [8]. Look at the sentence "a number of the bands of this era, particularly Travis, Stereophonics and Coldplay, continued to record and enjoy commercial success into the new millennium." The cites were arranged in order to verify Travis, then Stereophonics, then Coldplay, as that is the order in which they appear in the sentence. The AWB edit changed this so the Stereophonics cite comes first, then Coldplay, then Travis. Any thoughts? SilkTork✔Tea time15:25, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
SilkTork This would be AWB. AWB orders references in numerical order per "standard" practice. In the past, I've suggested using {{not a typo}} around the refs. I became aware of {{text}}, which is meant specifically for bots. However, I have not tried putting refs into it. Any pywikibot or AWB bot will honour these templates. Bgwhite (talk) 18:41, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
Your answer jogged my memory. I had asked a similar question last year: Wikipedia_talk:AutoWikiBrowser/General_fixes#ReorderReferences. ReorderReferences is clearly unhelpful and inappropriate, but its a minor issue, and I don't have the time or energy to pursue the matter, so I guess it'll continue to happen until someone does get irked enough to bring about the change. Thanks for your response. SilkTork✔Tea time20:23, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
Child PTSD Symptom Scale
Thanks for the edits! We are working actively on the page, and today is not going according to plan. I am going to be interrupted several times, and I am going to try to make edits in gaps, but not exactly sure when. Just wanted to be clear that we know it needs attention, and we are actively working on it. We appreciate your help; please don't panice if it looks messy for a bit (we have been working in multiple sandboxes and were moving pieces over when I got interrupted.).
I arrived at the article because of the broken bracket you created in #1. I manually corrected it with the change in #2. For #3, it was automatically corrected from ’ to ' per MOS:PUNCT and I screwed up by not catching that and using what I did for #2. Also per MOS:PUNCT, whether you use <nowiki />, {{'}}, {{'s}} or ' is up to you. I personally find ' horrendous as it is hard for non-technical people to understand. I used the template for umpteen years when I switched to using nowiki. For me, it's easier to see what's going on with nowiki. If I remember correctly, VE uses nowiki, but VE avoids using templates because who knows if the template will be found with what name on other wikis. Bgwhite (talk) 21:54, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
OK, I standardized the ''Breakfast on Pluto'''s to ''Breakfast on Pluto''<nowiki/>'s, rendering as Breakfast on Pluto's , but in the future I will probably usually use {{'}}. —Anomalocaris (talk) 23:53, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
Healing animals
Will my page Healing animals will be accepted when content is added more with cited links? I am new to Wikipedia. Pardon me for my comments. Shwetarose (talk) 1:07 am, Today (UTC−6)
Shwetarose I moved the article to draft space to give your time to improve the article. Adding references, adding more info about each therapy and making copy edits (a space after each punctuation mark and each letter doesn't need to be capitalized.) need to be done. I suggest going thru Articles for Creation as they will give you advice on what needs to be done. They will move it back to article space when ready. Teahouse is a good place to ask questions. I suspect you are from India. If so, I can get somebody that speaks one of the more popular languages from India, if you need the help. Bgwhite (talk) 07:23, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
Scope creep I copied B-Diesnt into the search window and didn't get anything. Sounds about right... I can't even get a copy/paste right. The link you are referring to is <ref>Thetis (decoy). In Wikipedia. Retrieved October 10, 2016, from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thetis_(decoy)</ref>. Wikipedia is an unreliable source. Wikipedia is user generated content... anybody can write anything in articles. It's the same thing for IMDb and forums. You can copy the refs from Thetis. Bgwhite (talk) 21:19, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
Sorry. I seem to spell it wrong, all the time. Will do. 21:59, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
Mitchumch I fixed the coding problems. However, I reverted the last paragraphs you changed to the old version, but kept the image. It was jumbled up and 1/2 of a ref missing. I'm not sure where to put the ref because of the changes you made. If you could add back in your changes, but make sure the current ref stays to what it is sourcing. If what you are adding isn't in the ref, make sure you add a new ref to that. Bgwhite (talk) 21:32, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
Dear Bgwhite,thank you for fixing the picture. It looks much better. I appreciate your contribution. The previous text that describes seating rules on the Montgomery buses was inaccurate and did not mention the middle section of the bus so I corrected it while leaving the parts that were right. I'll try to notice more closely the reference problem you noted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shultziner (talk • contribs) 04:20, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
Mitchumch Ooops, the first sentence is to you above, but forgot to put Shultziner's name at the start of the rest of the paragraph. My mistake and I apologize if it caused any problems. Shultziner, if you even need to how to code something up, please give me a yell. Bgwhite (talk) 06:19, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
Joshua Jonathan Hmmmm, looking at it more.... The problem is, I don't think "they" caused the IPs to be blocked. The blocks happened for vandalism on pages that are outside their normal scope of their editing. For the New York City Library IPs, it is understandable that many different people use the IPs. For Forcepoint... there is no way the company would allow normal outside access and allow normal connections from the inside to the outside world. The company is probably using VPN servers and proxy servers. Both of these could assign connections for many people that appear to be coming from one subnet and even the same IP.
"They" haven't been warned for vandalism or have done vandalism that I've seen. They are arrogant, don't take other people's advise and think they are above the law, but not a vandal. They do not hesitate to talk, while the vandals didn't talk. An issue I see is they use all three subnets to talk in the same discussion. Most of the time, I think all subnets talk as one voice, so no problem other than making everyone else confused. There are times that it looks like different people, but intentional, nature of the discussion or inadvertent, I don't know. Bgwhite (talk) 06:20, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
I already thought the same: various editors using these networks, but one specific editor (though they call themselves a group at User:Ip658888x) who edits Krishnamurti-related articles. And arrogant, indeed, but not stupid. Well, I hope Krishnamurti's teachings are doing them good ;). Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk!07:15, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
As mentioned on your talk page and by the many people who have reverted your edits, your references must source what is being written. You have alot of refs saying he made a plaque for a famous person, but the refs don't mention Beula or don't mention he made the plaque. The entire section is then deleted because there is no proof he made the plaques. Bgwhite (talk) 23:35, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
Hi Thanks for your message, however I am going by the references that have been given to me directly from the source. Can you please explain exactly which ones that are WRONG which you are reffering to?
Smiless--xo It looks like you are caught in the middle of a conflict of interest. Beula shouldn't be involved in editing his own article. I previously left a message on your talk page that mentions two examples. Long story short, if you want to add that Beula made a plaque for somebody, the reference must say Beula made a plaque for somebody. The links you were adding, most of them said a plaque was made, but it dint't say Beula made it. Bgwhite (talk) 22:59, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
UxFFFD
Sorry to bother you again. I would like a second pair of eyes on an issue. I've encountered a user that placed the symbol in an article on Race (human categorization). I have no idea what that is supposed to be. I asked the user on the talk page in section "Edit questioned". I'm not sure what to make of User:Acaciosc. Also, so as not to constantly bother you, where can I go to post these issues. Thanks. Mitchumch (talk) 17:19, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
You understood my question. I thought I was "GoingBatty" when I asked the user about it. When I looked at the users contribution I didn't see vandalism. So, I was confused. Anyhow, you solved the issue and I appreciate it. In the future I'll go to Village Pump:Technology. I don't want to burn my bridges. Thanks. Mitchumch (talk) 00:37, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
Why you are deleting List of India One Day International Matches page added me?
Dear Bg,
I don't understand what is the harm in creating page List of India One Day International Matches? DO you find it illogical? you have made _FORCTOC_ several times also you left message on talk page. Is it consuming space on wikipedia.org? is it any infringement did i make? I am adding references also. then why there is "no need of this article" comment? This is really dishearten — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sdm2211 (talk • contribs) 07:50, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
Sdm2211 I've never said anything about creating or deleting the article. I've never said anything about references. I never said about anything about needing or not needing the article. Only thing I said was to stop adding _FORCTOC_ (Force Table of Contents) after I've deleted it. I've deleted it four times and you've added it back. The Table of Contents is automatically created, therefor is no reason or need for _FORCTOC_ in the article. Bgwhite (talk) 07:57, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
You know who (Serampore WestBengal, Varanasi-221001, Mukherjee Subhayan Tito, SRMSS, Tito Mukherjee, Subhayan Mukherjee) has returned as 'PIN 712201', and is back to his old tricks. This guy is like the terminator, he just will not stop. Better block him before he does too much damage. Cheers David.moreno7213:48, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
Hi,Bgwhite,thanks for helping me to correct my mistakes.I am a freshman of wiki,so I always make some mistakes even I don't know.SORRY.I hope you can help me to find my mistakes. And I don't know the reason why you deleted the Publications(Chikashi Toyoshima).If its formation is not correct,I will try my best to improve it because it's really important to introduce a scientist. I wish you can consider my request and give me some advises to improve this entry.Thank you very much.Chenggang Lee (talk) 01:18, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
I don't know whether I have made a mistakes again in this page so that you don't want to reply me.I really want know the reason.Please tell me.Thank you.Chenggang Lee (talk) 12:30, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
Chenggang Lee The problem is, there is a big long list of journal articles. This isn't needed. It's better to incorporate some of the journal cites into the article's text. For example, there are no references about his work on Ca2+-ATPase. You can add references from some of the journal articles that cite Ca2+-ATPase.
Hi,Bg,thanks for your advice. I am very grateful to you. Because you are the only one person who answered my questions and gave me some advice. With your guidance, I have improved the entry. I hope you can help me to check it to prevent me making mistakes again if you are free. And I want to remove the Multiple issues in the entry(Chikashi Toyoshima), but I don't know whether I have correct all the issues or what should I do to remove it. The manuscript is in my sand box(User:Chenggang Lee/sandbox). Thank you.Chenggang Lee (talk) 15:34, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
Celestina007 Twitter and Wordpress are an unreliable reference. See WP:RSSELF. You also left them as a list at the end of the article. There was no way to know what an individual ref was sourcing in the article. Bgwhite (talk) 21:17, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
Can you Advise me?
What do I do ? A Nigerian person here named Oluwa2chainz or spelt with an 's' has power and is bulling me , he nominated my article on "Kansi the rocket" for speedy deletion due to the fact that I nominated his piece on a Nigerian actress mercy Johnson for speedy deletion due to the fact that it contained no refrence none whatsoever he later referenced it then removed my deletion template put on the page. And ever since then it has been a witch-hunt on me. You have more knowledge than me. Pls what do I do ? Should i refrain from being too bold ? Celestina007 (talk) 21:52, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
Celestina007 You didn't do a speedy delete nomination on Mercy Johnson, you did a BLPProd. BLPProd means the article will be deleted unless references are added. They added refs and removed the BLPProd, which is perfectly legal.
As the article stands, I too would have put up a speedy delete. There's one reference that is a forum. Another ref that is blank for me. The buzzfeed ref just has a twitter image done by him. None of these meet the requirements of multiple, reliable, independent references that go into some depth about the person. The best that can be done is to move the article back as a draft. This will give you time to find valid refs.
If an administrator , say someone like you with great influence had personal problems with a common editor like myself. Knowing fully well every correction made will most of the time be out of bias what is the next course of action for me? Should I quit Wikipedia? The last thing I would want is being afraid to contribute to knowledge & "fill in" knowledge gap. Isn't it wrong for people with power here to use it for personal revenge ? Celestina007 (talk) 01:43, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for fixing the ISBN here (I think); I'm unsure, as the book details I put down were the ones on the book's title page, not the one's on the Book Sources page. I've no idea how that has happened, do you? Moonraker12 (talk) 23:33, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
Moonraker Probably a misprint. The last digit is the only one that changed and it went from a 7 to a 2. The last number in an ISBN is called the checksum digit. It tells if there is an error with the previous numbers. So, with the the first 12 digits of the ISBN, the checksum digit can only be a 2. Anything other than a two and it's an invalid ISBN. Looking up the correct ISBN at Worldcat shows this and Amazon has this. Bgwhite (talk) 06:24, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
My apologies; for some obscure reason (midnight editing, most like) I put a 978 in front of the book ISBN. And I got the name wrong, too! I've replaced the original (corrected) ISBN in the article, as that is the edition I used; I don't know how much difference it'd make to page numbering, but best be safe. And thanks for your comments; I'm a bit clearer on ISBN's now. Regards, Moonraker12 (talk) 23:36, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
There are two differences between a 10-digit ISBN and a 13-digit one: the 978- prefix, and the method for calculating the check digit. But if the other 9 digits are the same, it should be exactly the same book, same edition, same pagination. On books published before 1 January 2007 (and even some books from as early as the 1980s) that "officially" have only an ISBN-10, look on the back: if there is a barcode, the numbers directly below that will be the ISBN-13 - just differently spaced or hyphenated, such as 9 780711 015319 (instead of 978-0-7110-1531-9) on a book published in 1985 that also bears ISBN0-7110-1531-7. --Redrose64 (talk) 02:28, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
I moved a new article named Bobrisky to live / main space please view it & helpmake corrections on it. It is a good work compared to my first article.
Thank you. Celestina007 (talk) 20:29, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
Oluwa2Chainz Subject of the Bobrisky articles fits the pattern. The writing style and technical ability of the sock really varies, so that makes things harder. Some of the sock's articles look similar to Bobrisky's style. You know the sock better than me. If you think it's another sock, I'd say you should file a report. Bgwhite (talk) 23:22, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
Witch-hunting made obvious
Is it possible to report a user who has bias and personal hatred to you? I want to file a report officially to Wikipedia it is concerning a certain "oluwa2chainz" he is attacking me for no reasons my second article on bobrisky has sufficient reference and somehow he has issues still with me? I don't know what "sock of an spi" means but from what i could read it connotes having more than one account, well that is false & because this is my only account , I am open for any investigations. Pls where can I place a report or request to be protected from vandals such as he? Because I don't want to be afraid to edit or add to knowledge , more so his second attempt to delete my article has been rejected because his first claim was debunked because again my reference proves otherwise. I actually want to report him , how may I do so? Celestina007 (talk) 02:21, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
Celestina007 I don't see where Oluwa2Chainz is attacking the Bobrisky article. They did request a speedy delete on Kansi The Rocket. I agreed that it was not ready to be an article. The refs were bad and his claim to fame was dubious. My choice was either to delete or move. It's still not ready as there are no reliable references. Twitter doesn't count. Oluwa2Chainz then placed another speedy saying the Kansi article was previously deleted via a discussion. This is a valid reason if Kansi was in article space, but it's not. It is still a draft, so I declined the speedy. I had to look up about drafts can't be speedy that way, so I doubt Oluwa2Chainz knew too.
A sock, in this case, is an active user, editing articles and who was previously banned. Oluwa2Chainz has had interaction before with the sock and asked for my opinion about you being a sock. Asking for another opinion is Oluwa2Chainz being cautious and they did the right thing. The previously banned user has had many socks banned. The banned user primarily edited Nigerian entertainment articles. I said yes, file a sock report. This does not mean we know you to be a sock, just you happen to be similar. Another group decides if a person is indeed a sock.
Oluwa2Chainz primarily does vandalism patrol and new page patrol. New page patrol's duties include checking references, verifying if the article meets inclusion guidelines and applying speedy deletes as necessary. Another words, Oluwa2Chainz is doing the job when it comes to the Bobrisky and Kansi articles. You need to make sure the articles have valid references. The references and the article needs to meet WP:GNG. Oluwa2Chainz and any new page patroller are making decision based on what is written in that article. I can understand you being upset. When I first started out, I kept being reverted and thrown guidelines I should learn. Wikipedia has a steep learning curve. Try not to be stress and keep learning. Bgwhite (talk) 05:16, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
