User talk:Bgwhite/Archive 20

The Doctor's conflict of interest

Excellent points! Of course, I've always been ready to cast a critical eye upon myselves. Dr.Who (talk) 07:10, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

I sense a problem

[1]. -- Magioladitis (talk) 00:01, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Magioladitis, oh joy. I reverted and left a message on the user's talk page. Looks like some ownership issues. English dump hasn't started up yet. Bgwhite (talk) 00:16, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Reverts of Bot edits on Buried by the Times

I am afraid that I have had to revert several times the Bot edit which removes the difference between the sections and subsections. I explained the revert as follows: (Reverted to sections and subsections, edit doesnt make sense. Discuss reason for change) but so far no discussion. Am I doing something wrong?Joel Mc (talk) 09:31, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Joel Mc check WP:MOSHEAD. -- Magioladitis (talk) 10:12, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Don't know how this slipped by me.Joel Mc (talk) 12:29, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Sorry Joel Mc, my fault. After the last drawn out kerfuffle over this, I was going to change the edit summary. I promptly forgot. I just changed the edit summary to: WP:CHECKWIKI error fix. Section heading problem. Violates WP:MOSHEAD. Bgwhite (talk) 06:40, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Bgwhite. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Edit filter/Requested.
Message added 07:09, 4 November 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

—Unforgettableid (talk) 07:09, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Changes to Table on EMC Page

The Changes you made to the table on EMC page have caused the rest of the page to skew. I have therefore reverted your changes. You can sheck out your version with the reverted version and you will see. I suggest that table is now left in pure HTML code (as is permitted) so that there is no conflict with wiki-markup. Thank you. Kind regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.66.81.80 (talk) 12:56, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

No, I didn't leave a hostile message. No, it wasn't an edit made using a machine, it was made by me. You reverted two of my edits. I only listed things that are wrong, which is not hostile. Looks like past experience is coloring your current view. I'm not attacking content. I'm only giving you advice on how things should be formatted. As with every different academic journal, they have there own formatting guidelines they use. If you want to play defensive and play everyone is out to get you, then you should leave. If you refuse to take any criticism, then leave. You have obviously never submitted a paper to publish, as you would know that criticism is not always hostile.

1. Swedish - As stated above, you don't leave links to Swedish pages when the English link is already given.
2. Again, as stated above, the photo of the University is not needed. The article is about EMC and only photos that deal directly about EMC should be included. Adding the University photo is promotional only.
3. You may have not created the table, but you reverted the edit fixing it.
4. This is Wikipedia, not a web page. Having editors of all backgrounds to learn Wiki syntax and HTML syntax is not good and unreasonable. There was a reason why Wiki syntax was created. Table link and link for wikisyntax. Out of 4,000,000+ articles, less than 400 use the table tag. Bgwhite (talk) 08:52, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Let us now keep this civilised before it escalates into something neither of us intend. I stand by my remarks. The table is in HTML and that is allowed. There is no mandatory rule (phew!). Your changes skewed then the entire remainder of the page over by 5%. I checked it on my laptop, then my tablet and then my smartphone in several browsers. All the same. So I changed it back so that another wikipedia "god" would not come along and accuse me of messing with "margin style" or "lack of margin style" or "deep core space directive 12345hn" or whatever else that editor wants to throw at the page. It is nothing new. So your edit did not "fix" it. It did not need "fixing". Instead your work rendered the left margin of the entire page over by 5%. As for content, lets us keep this focused on whether or not your work did or did not skew the margin and let us not get deflected because I can promise you I have no time to learn wiki mark-up to build a table when it is not needed. This means if you want it in Wiki-markup you have to figure out the bug causing the "margin shift" and not vent anything in my directions as "messenger". Because I am not going to learn Wiki mark-up to make a table, any more than am I going to leave work which skews the left margin of half the page over by 5% simply because a editor will not listen to a technical issue. Kind regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.66.81.80 (talk) 09:13, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Sorry. Just to be clear: it was rendering the left margin over by 5% (or so) for ALL text on the entire Wikipedia page BELOW the table section (NOT the entire page). I just want to clarify. Best regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.66.81.80 (talk) 09:21, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Tech News: 2013-44

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

New features

• The style and colors for warning boxes, error messages, and success messages in all skins of MediaWiki has been changed. [2]

VisualEditor news

• You will soon be able to switch from editing in VisualEditor to editing wikitext directly without having to save the page. You can't yet switch from wikitext to VisualEditor but developers hope to make it possible in the future. [3]

Problems

• There was a problem on October 31 during the activation of MediaWiki 1.22wmf2 on test wikis. mediawiki.org was also broken, and if you had problems logging in, it was probably because of this as well.

Future

• Because of the problem with MediaWiki 1.22wmf2, the calendar has changed. It will be added to mediawiki.org and non-Wikipedia sites on November 4, and all Wikipedia sites on November 7.

JavaScript / Gadget developers

• Due to a recent change, gadgets and user scripts that use jQuery UI should explicitly load the appropriate modules, as they may not be loaded by default. [4]
• Developers have started to remove long-deprecated methods. You should check the JavaScript console (in debug=true mode) and look for deprecation warnings and their stack trace. [5]

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

10:30, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Two articles for the same monastery

Hello Bgwhite, I was here recently asking for some help on Blanche of Portugal. I participate mainly in es.wiki and sometimes cannot find my away around here. I created an article this morning and when I went to link up a monastery, I noticed that there are two separate articles (both pretty much abandoned and without references) which I could try to expand by translating from es.wiki. I refer to: Monasterio de San Vicente and San Vicente de Oviedo…the first one should be deleted (doesn't offer much) and I would work on the second one (I would also change its name to Monastery of San Vicente de Oviedo, or something similar. How should I go about this....meaning, where do I go to suggest an article for deletion and to make this proposal? Thanks in advance for your guidance. Regards, --Maragm (talk) 11:02, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Maragm, nice catch on the duplicate articles. I've moved the page to Monastery of San Vicente de Oviedo. Looking at Category:Benedictine monasteries in Spain, the title you proposed is the same format as the other Abbeys and Monasteries, so this isn't a controversial move. I'll handle the deletion of the other article. As always, don't hesitate to leave a message. Bgwhite (talk) 18:38, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much, again, for your efforts. I'll start expanding and referencing the article tomorrow. Best regards, --Maragm (talk) 19:37, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Undergoing Lengthy Copy Edit Tag Ignored

The bot just wiped out 3 hours of my rather difficult copy editing work at Yakshagana because it ignored a "This article or section is currently undergoing a major edit by the Guild of Copy Editors. As a courtesy, please do not edit this page while this message is displayed." flag/tag and caused an edit conflict from which I (or my computer) could not recover. This should probably be fixed on your next version of this bot. Thought you should know. Thanks. GenQuest ^{"Talk to Me"} 01:26, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

No, the bot did not wipe out 3 hours of work. It didn't wipe out any work. Other people have edited the page before me and any of their edits could have done the same thing. Also, other tools don't show the GOCEinuse tag when people edit. Just because a tag was put up doesn't mean you shouldn't be saving your work a little more often than 3 hours. All bots that I'm aware of ignore {{GOCEinuse}}. Bots use {{nobots}} or {{bots}} to tell them to not work on the page. You might want to leave a message on GOCEinuse's talk page to have it include nobots. Bgwhite (talk) 01:50, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Will do. I didn't know about those templates, and will be sure to use them in the future. It was just frustrating editing this really, really esoteric article in which I had to spend so much time finding and reading a large amount of background material as I edited (so as to not mess up the true meaning of the original work). I didn't mean to come off gripey. I have just never had that kind of a problem, especially with a bot, before. Thanks for the info. GenQuest ^{"Talk to Me"} 07:31, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

GenQuest, I think my laptop would be in a thousand pieces if it happened to me. The worst case I've ever seen was a student had his master's thesis on one floppy disk. (Yea, I'm old) He was 3/4 done with his initial draft when the floppy died. I had a Prof who didn't know the meaning of backup. The power would go out and I'd get yelled at for 10 minutes because it was my fault. I was the IT guy. Another thing you could do is copy the article to your sandbox and edit it there. Bgwhite (talk) 07:50, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Bgwhite - AWB will skip pages with {{GOCEinuse}} or {{inuse}} if you check the "Page is in use" box. I've just added this to WP:AWB/UM#Skip. GoingBatty (talk) 06:03, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Batty. I've just checked the box in AWB. Bgwhite (talk) 06:05, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

KNTM 2

My apologies, I was speaking in reference to using two colors for one of the tables only. Seen in this talk page. I wasn't trying to change the tags. 71.239.172.110 (talk) 06:17, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

How to use Navbox

Hello Bgwhite,

I received a message from you concerning navbox. I have no clue how to use the navbox, despite being told to move it to template space. I have tried looking up articles on creating navboxes, but unfortunately the pages/articles about navbox and templates are extremely long, so much so that they are rather impossible to sift through to find what I need. I figured out how to type up what I need; however, I have no idea where to move it, nor where to find the "template space" to even move it to. If you could please explain to me (or give me the link) where this "template space" is and how I can create my navbox in that template space, I should be able to take it from there.

Markkaempfer (talk) 05:35, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Markkaempfer:

1. Up in the search box, type: Template:Geographical features of Perry County, Missouri
2. Towards the bottom, in red letters, it will ask you if you want to create the page, click on the red link.
3. Copy/paste your navbox in here and save.
4. In an article where you want the navbox to appear, type: {{Geographical features of Perry County, Missouri}}

So, you only create one navbox, but it will appear on any page(s) you want. The advantage here is when you want to change something in the navbox, you only have to edit one place. It looked like your navboxes were referencing your sandbox. You can't do this. The page will end up on a list and will be deleted. If you need any more help or have questions, feel free to ask. Bgwhite (talk) 06:20, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Navbox

Thank you for the information on creating a navbox. Unfortunately, any changes I try to make on the navbox reference my sandbox, which means the changes do not show up in the navbox attached to any article. How do I delete something from my sandbox or prevent it from referencing my sandbox?

Thank you.

Markkaempfer (talk) 22:36, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Markkaempfer, I made some small changes to the template and everything seems to be working. I added the template to Cinque Hommes Creek and it is working there.

The two problems were: 1) Name= It is the template's name 2) State= It is not the U.S. state, but the whether the template should default to "open" or "close" when the page loads up. I set it to "auto", which means it will be "open" if it is the only template, otherwise it will be "closed". Good job. Now onto Bollinger or Madison... Bgwhite (talk) 23:58, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 9 November

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

• On the University of Cartagena page, your edit caused a missing references list (help | help with group references). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 03:45, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Please check that my reerences are OK - (spelling and correct name etc) for PIPPA MIDDLETON page Cheers mike — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.219.138.209 (talk) 07:32, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Default sort

I see you have been adding the default sort template to several articles. Does every article need this? More importantly, what is the use or point of a default sort to the article title? That is the default anyway. This all adds unnecessary clutter. -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 08:23, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Daemonic Kangaroo, not every article needs a default sort. The condensed version... Sorting involves only the 26-letters in the English alphabet, comma, period, dash and single quote. This is done because sorting is done in Unicode order (See mw:Help:Sorting). So, if you have a bunch of articles that start as either Le or Lé, everything that starts with Le will come first and everything that starts with Lé will come afterward. Then there are people's names. They are sorted surname, firstname. So, most names need a default sort order. The grizzly details of name sorting is at WP:NAMESORT. So, if the article is not a biography or doesn't have "special" letters, it doesn't need a default sort... most of the time. "List of..." articles are a notable exception. I've said this before, but I just love your name. Gives me a smile because I'm thinking what a Daemonic Kangaroo looks like. Bgwhite (talk) 08:46, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Tech News: 2013-45

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

New features

• You can now use the "Autonym" font of the Universal Language Selector (ULS) to display the name of languages (for example in navigation templates) in their correct script. To do this, add the CSS class "autonym" to the elements that include language names. Note that this font only works for the name of languages, not for any other text. [6]

Problems

• There was a problem with Parsoid (the program used by VisualEditor to convert wikitext to annotated HTML) on November 4, between 19:40 and 20:40 (UTC). Encoding issues caused non-ASCII characters (including those with diacritics, like "é") to be broken when converted to wikitext and saved to the page. [7]

Future

• The Beta Features tool is now available on Commons and Meta-Wiki. With it, you can test new features before they're added for everyone. The plan is to add this tool to all wikis on November 21. [8]
• MediaWiki 1.23wmf3 was added to test wikis on November 7. It will arrive to non-Wikipedia wikis on November 12 and all Wikipedia wikis on November 14 (calendar). [9]
• The MassMessage tool will be added to all wikis on November 14. It will make it simpler to send messages across wikis. [10]
• The button of the Search page will soon be changed to be blue and bigger (see the difference). [11]
• You will soon be able to add a page name as parameter for {{REVISIONID}}, {{REVISIONUSER}} and {{REVISIONTIMESTAMP}} and similar functions, by writing for example {{REVISIONID:Apple}}. [12]
• In the future, when you hide a CentralNotice banner on a wiki, it will also be hidden on other Wikimedia sites. [13]

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

13:01, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Generalized eigenvector

I reverted your unexplained revert on Generalized eigenvector. Feel free to join the discussion on the talk page, but this article is in the process of being cleaned up to fix the excessive use of <br /> tags, and excessive bolding. 198.102.153.2 (talk) 16:35, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Harp Twins references section

Hello Bgwhite,

I was wondering if you could please give me permission simply to improve the references section of the Harp Twins page. For example, I would like to add the names of the articles (and their authors), date of retrieval, etc. (in some cases this information is not there), to comply with standard Wikipedia rules and make the references section consistent. This should not be seen as controversial, in my opinion, and I think Duff once complained that the references section needed improvements; at the time I did not know how to do that, but I have learned since then. If you don't think it's a good idea, I'll understand. Oh, and they don't look stunning at all any more, not even Camille. What a shame:

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10152350195334129&set=a.10151788170899129.1073741825.264726799128&type=1&theater

Have a nice day... Dontreader (talk) 08:35, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Dontreader, you are one cruel person. Making me worried and then show a stunning photo of Camille. That is worth a block.

No, it would probably be best if you don't touch the article. Copy the article into your sandbox. When you are done, give a yell. I'll look at it and then you can copy it back into the article. Bgwhite (talk) 08:48, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I am curious about the background to the question asked by Dontreader above, i.e. "I was wondering if you could please give me permission ..." etc. and the reply, "No, it would probably be best if you don't touch the article" etc.. The article doesn't seem protected in any way. Why does this editor need to seek permission to edit from another editor and why is there a "No" answer? I am not having a go at anyone, I'm assuming I am missing something and just curious as to what it is. Cheers. Melbourne3163 (talk) 02:41, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Melbourne3163, there was an edit war that got close to people being blocked. An agreement was made on how to edit the article. There is no "formal" agreement and it is voluntary. So far, it has kept the peace and created a better article. Bgwhite (talk) 04:49, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

OK, I understand. Many thanks for your reply. Melbourne3163 (talk) 06:27, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Pardon my cruelty, Bgwhite. I live in a world of lust and crime. I must be cruel in order to survive... Anyway, I'll have the sandbox ready tomorrow, I hope. That's a good idea. I'll let you know as soon as I'm finished. Thanks again. Dontreader (talk) 07:45, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Hello again, Bgwhite. I just finished the references section, which really looks much better now, in my opinion. I also made a few very small changes, like for example, instead of 45 videos, they now have 46 videos, plus I italicized Game of Thrones, and I added quotation marks to "Zombie" and "Stairway to Heaven", since that's the proper format. I added a missing period and a comma as well. Tiny things. It's all in my sandbox. The article is at the top of my sandbox, until where it says ++++++++++ END OF HARP TWINS ARTICLE ++++++++++. The other stuff below shows up in the contents, but surely you understand that. Maybe you could copy and paste the article from my sandbox into the real article. Please take a look and let me know. Thanks in advance. Dontreader (talk) 02:15, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Dontreader I cut back my Wikipedia time on weekends... wife thinks I have to spend time with her. To make matters worse, I'm seeing the mother-in-law tomorrow, so I'll be nauseous and have a huge migraine. I'll get to it by Monday. Thoughts of Camille is the only thing getting me thru this trying time. Bgwhite (talk) 00:02, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Bgwhite, your situation is indeed infernal. Your wife is very demanding but I have seen worse cases. For example, wives who want their husbands to sit down and "listen" to them, or wives who want their husbands to try to "understand" them. Imagine that. Suicidal thoughts become routine. However, your mother-in-law has never reverted my edits, which is why I'm on such good terms with her. Anyway, be strong. Continue to think of Camille, and then of Kennerly (for the sake of variety), and then of how talented they both are in the kitchen:

http://instagram.com/p/farN3wj20M/

I will pray for you. Dontreader (talk) 08:42, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Dontreader, I updated the info in the body that you made. I converted the references to use templates. I didn't move the refs up into the body of the article. Debate will rage on years from now on where to put refs and what format. I personally like refs inline instead of all bunched up at the end, but this is minor and not worth moving. Anything I missed? Bgwhite (talk) 06:25, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

208

Hello, Bgwhite. You have new messages at 208.81.184.4's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hey, Bgwhite, I noticed your interactions with the 208.81 IP and thought I'd leave you a brief note here. 208 is (IMO) a very valuable editor with more edits than most registered editors, and a knowledge of policy comparable to many admins. They tend to do gmomish work and make lots of minor changes to many articles, which I think is what they were trying to do to the list in question. I think you'll find that you'd get a better response if you treated them more as a peer (i.e. minus the "stop it right now" and "crap"). As for the dispute itself, in my experience a "Notes" section followed by a "References" section is fairly standard. I could be wrong, but I wouldn't be to harsh on anybody for thinking the same (see, for instance, the illustration at WP:FNNR). As for inclusion of the UHE in a new Further Reading section, I think you're right that it works better as a reference by itself, and I don't think 208 is fighting you on that. ~Adjwilley (talk) 00:23, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Adjwilley Thank you of not thinking of me as a valued editor with way more edits than most. Yes, I know you and 208 are friends. When they revert three times in a row without stating a valid reason why, I have a problem. When I leave a message on their talk page and they again revert without first discussing, telling them to stop it is very appropriate. When they start attacking me, I will them them to stop their crap. Yes, I know 208 is a longtime editor. I know he does Gnomish edits and *only* works in the LDS sphere. That is not the problem. This has never entered into the equation, so I don't know why you are bringing it up. Your understanding of the "dispute" and your notes above are way off. The "Reference" dispute is 208 telling me the articles reference section is "not standard" when I've shown him, repeatedly, with examples, that it is. He wants to remove the "non-standard" reference format from FL and FA articles and uses WP:PERENNIAL as the reason why. THAT IS A PROBLEM. He has been either inserting or correcting the ref to a book in hundreds of articles. I haven't complained in over 50 articles on my watchlist that he has changed or added his book. He wants to add his book into the "further reading" section, that is already in there for two refs and is not policy nor is it helpful. As I said on his talk page, his book is out of date, missing the majority of symbols and already used as a ref. As 208 only interest is to get his book into articles...

Instead of backing up your friend, how about answering questions 208 doesn't answer. Please tell my why the book should be there besides the two refs? Tell me how it brings anything new to what is already there, especially with it being out of date? Tell me why the reference format should be changed in a majority FA and FL articles? Bgwhite (talk) 01:31, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

I think you may have mistaken my intentions here. I definitely think of you as a valuable editor (and Admin) with more edits to your name than most of us will make in a lifetime. In fact, if my memory serves me, I may have given you a barnstar or two. I am accustomed to seeing 208 treated poorly because of the general stigma many editors (understandably) have toward IP editors. I have noticed that 208 is sensitive to this and tends to overreact sometimes, so not knowing whether you were aware of this or not I dropped you a note suggesting that a softer approach might be better. I am not here to defend 208 or their edits, nor to take part in the dispute. Best, ~Adjwilley (talk) 01:24, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Invitation to join WikiProject Freedom of speech

• WP:WikiProject Freedom of speech

There is a WikiProject about Freedom of speech, called WP:WikiProject Freedom of speech. If you're interested, here are some easy things you can do:

1. List yourself as a participant in the WikiProject, by adding your username here: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Freedom_of_speech#Participants.
2. Add userbox {{User Freedom of speech}} to your userpage, which lists you as a member of the WikiProject.
3. Tag relevant talk pages of articles and other relevant pages using {{WikiProject Freedom of speech}}.
4. Join in discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Freedom of speech.
5. Notify others you think might be interested in Freedom of speech to join the WikiProject.

Thank you for your interest in Freedom of speech, — Cirt (talk) 03:19, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

re Help needed at some fucking articles

Thank you for your interest in my recent quality improvement efforts on articles related to freedom of speech.

Much appreciated,

— Cirt (talk) 03:30, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Navbox issues...

Hey Bigwhite,

I must be doing something wrong because when I create a navbox, I seem to be able to make them and they work when I paste them onto the intended articles, but I just can't seem to edit them once they have been created. You helped me with my first one:

and that works great. But since then I've made two naboxes:

and

. However, when trying to edit them I find I can't (the box for editing is empty). I tried looking for anything indicating "open" and "closed" or "auto" on the page (in an attempt to correct it as you had done previously), but couldn't find anything. Might you know what it is that I'm doing wrong?

Thanks,

Markkaempfer (talk) 08:14, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Markkaempfer, you have the "name" parameter wrong. On "Geographical features of Cape Girardeau County, Missouri", you have the name parameter set to: "name=Geographical features of". As there is no template named "Geographical features of", you get a blank page. I changed name to the name of the template and now it works.

For the Ste. Genevieve template, type in the search box, "Template:Geographical features of Ste. Genevieve, Missouri". It will take you to the template and you can edit that one. Bgwhite (talk) 09:01, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Tech News: 2013-46

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

Problems

• There was a problem caused by too many requests to the database on November 14. [14]

Future

• MediaWiki 1.23wmf4 was added to test wikis on November 14. It will arrive to non-Wikipedia wikis on November 19 and all Wikipedia wikis on November 21 (calendar).
• The new Search tool (CirrusSearch) will be added to *.wikimedia.org, Wikimania and Wikisource wikis on November 19, and Wiktionary wikis on November 21 (except where it's already available). Once it is added, you can test it by adding &srbackend=CirrusSearch to the address of the search results page. It will become the main search engine on Wikivoyage wikis on November 21. [15]
• The MassMessage tool will be added to all wikis on November 19 instead of November 14. It will make it simpler to send messages across wikis. [16]

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

08:48, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Not a blind revert

Where in your edit summary is it mentioned, or linked to, something that supports your claim that small-tags must be closed. It's not that I doubt that it's true – but you didn't mention it, nor did you link to it. So, in your edit summary, you were indeed yourself making assumptions.

So, please no PA in edit summaries.

HandsomeFella (talk) 16:55, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

HandsomeFella It wasn't a personal attack.

Original edit summary said "WP:CHECKWIKI error fix. Broken bracket problem. Do WP:GENFIXES and cleanup if needed."

2nd edit summary, "Yet another blind revert without reading the edit summary. Read the edit summary and don't assume..."

You blindly reverted so the bracket issue became broken again. You reverted back to this: {{cite web{{cite web. That is a broken bracket problem. That is why I came to the article. That is in the original edit summary. A non-blind revert would have reverted everything but kept broken bracket fix. From above, it appears you still haven't seen that yet and only have fixated on the small tag. Bgwhite (talk) 17:14, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Your first edit summary did not mention anything about small-tags, nor did it link to a page that says that small-tags always should be paired. As far as I know, small-tags are not brackets. Thus (1), I did not blindly revert. Thus (2), you, in your second edit summary, were the one making assumptions, assuming that my revert was blind.

Your second edit summary may not have been a personal attack per se, but such expressions may provoke a reaction, leading to edit wars. I'm surprised you don't realize that.

HandsomeFella (talk) 17:31, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Stop fixating on small tags for a moment. This is not about small tags. This has nothing to do with small tags. Please read what I said above. You reverted {{cite web to {{cite web{{cite web. Re-introducing an error by reverting is a blind revert. There was NO reason to revert at all. You reverted an edit and re-introduced errors in which edit summary clearly states was the primary reason for the edit. You are so fixated on small tags that you have yet to see this. You assumed and fixated on small tags and not on the actual problem.

Per WP:PARTIALRV, "Revert only when necessary ... A reversion can eliminate "good stuff", discourage other editors, and spark an edit war. ... Try not to revert constructive edits for minor problems – don't throw the baby out with the bathwater." You did a bad revert plain and simple... you had no reason to revert and you re-introduced an error.

"I'm surprised you don't realize that." I see you don't practice what you preach. Bgwhite (talk) 18:00, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Please stop repeating what you wrote, what I wrote, etc. It's there for anyone to see, and both you and I know – at least I – what we wrote. Also please stop claiming that it was a blind revert. Did you see this in my edit summary: "not needed here, really, since the double pipe ends the small tag"? If not, you were the one blindly reverting. If you did see it, how can you not realize that it was a good faith revert?

The reason I'm "fixating on small tags", as you put it, is that that is what I reverted. I did not revert any brackets. I also wasn't aware that this was an error. It could as well have been an intentional feature of the wikicode, what do I know? Furthermore, I didn't find anything in the pages you linked to mentioning the preferred pairing of small-tags, which is what we're talking about. You could point out the exact place, if you wish.

So, seen from that perspective, and now knowing what I have explained about my revert, is it (even remotely) possible that your first edit summary was at least less than crystal clear?

I missed the cite web error when reviewing your change, I admit that. I wasn't aware of the error, despite being the major contributor to all pages in that series of articles. That may make my revert a bad revert, but not a blind one.

Seriously, Bg, you need to assume good faith. The last sentence in your previous post doesn't make anything better.

HandsomeFella (talk) 19:07, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

"I did not revert any brackets." Your reverted bracket change.

"...If not, you were the one blindly reverting. If you did see it, how can you not realize that it was a good faith revert?" Lets, see. You restored a bracket error, the main part of my edit summary. How can you not realize that? You then restored a page with no closed tags.

"Please stop repeating what you wrote"... as you failed to acknowledge a bracket error, it made it hard not to keep repeating until you understood. Not seeing the bracket error, when given in the edit summary goes to my argument of a blind revert. You *did* a blind revert because you saw all those closed tags and assumed that was the reason. I've done it myself and when I did it, it was also a blind revert. You didn't do a blind revert because of ownership issues or because you revert any AWB or Bgwhite edits. I'm not saying you are evil, bad or horrible. You also did do a bad revert by even changing the small tags as it wasn't necessary to revert even if you thought it was ok not to have them.

"Do WP:GENFIXES and cleanup if needed." is clear. I did a cleanup. I can't list the 1, 2 or 10, 20 cleanups that AWB makes. It was decided, not by me, for the edit summary to say the reason why I arrived for an AWB edit and give the cleanup statement. Yes, people were arguing over my and some other AWB editors edit summary. I cannot please everybody. I can't help if people don't think a closing tag, removing double punctuation, removing a br tag when not needed or lower casing the heading after the first character is not a cleanup or a copyedit. It is strange that the editors who usually complains about this (not talking about you) are the ones who don't leave a summary or just a one-word summary.

Seriously, HandsomeFella, you need to assume good faith. You have assumed bad faith from the beginning. You assumed I was doing a direct personal attack when I said don't do a blind revert. You then told me how dumb I am by saying, "I'm surprised you don't realize that." I sorry that I'm a idiot and don't realize what you are saying all the time. Bgwhite (talk) 23:04, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

BG19bot wording suggestion

In this edit [17] (which was no problem), the edit summary states

WP:CHECKWIKI error fix. Section heading problem. Violates WP:MOSHEAD.)

"Violates" as a description of benign editing errors is too extreme, in my opinion. My suggestion is:

WP:CHECKWIKI error fix. Section heading fixed per WP:MOSHEAD.)

IMHO, simply stating what was fixed, per which guideline, is enough. This will also tend not to provoke arguments or intimidate new editors (per WP:DONTBITE). Glad the bot exists. --Lexein (talk) 09:40, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, Bgwhite. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 18:23, 21 November 2013 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Sportsguy17 (R.I.P Jackson Peebles) 18:23, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Tech News: 2013-47

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

New features

• The Beta Features announced before are now available on all Wikimedia wikis. You can test new features easily by changing your Beta preferences. VisualEditor is one of those features on sites where it works and isn't automatically enabled. There is also a new media viewer and changes in the article text style. [18]
• Tools developers can now create tools that use the OAuth protocol to connect to accounts on Wikimedia sites. As a user, you can use those tools to make edits and other changes with your account without giving the tool your password. [19]

Problems

• Wikis that are currently testing CirrusSearch had problems with search results on November 18 from 16:00 to 20:00 UTC.

Future

• There will be no major code changes on the week of November 25 because many developers will be on holiday for Thanksgiving.
• The editing interface of Page: pages on Wikisource (working with the Proofread Page extension) will soon also work without JavaScript. [20]

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

06:44, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Reply

I think we should keep him on the block for the remaining three months. This isn't exactly something that should easily be overlooked and forgotten. Assassin was asked for at least four months to refrain from his actions. The six month block was decided as apposed to indefinite,so I feel the full sentence should be carried out. That's just me. Rusted AutoParts 21:14, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Rusted AutoParts, I completely understand your feelings. Big assumptions, but if he appealed and if it were granted, what stipulations would you want? There was the "mentor" and no creating articles or redirects from before he was blocked. Perhaps, no working in movie articles at all?

If Assassin does an appeal, I'll make sure you are notified and opinion is heard. Bgwhite (talk) 21:28, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Changes to "Alex Marshall (Journalist)"

Hello. Since "Alex Marshall (Journalist)" is my first article, I'd be grateful for some help understanding the extensive deletions you made on it. What honors are "big" enough to merit mention? Why are a journalist's articles not to be listed? Not trying to dispute your judgment, only to understand. I'm especially perplexed by your removal of the "External Links" section, since your note advises linking to a list of Marshall's articles, and I've been advised to add third-party links in order to bolster noteworthiness; but I don't want to undo that until I hear from you. Jim Crutchfield (talk) 15:32, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Ooops, I remove the external link section by accident. I did the same for the reference section. Big red lettering saying ref section missing made it a little easier to spot a put back in. Generally, fellowships are rarely notable. Local chapter awards are also not notable. What is notable? If the award has an article, that would most likely make the award notable. In Academia, an endowed chair or national award. Journalist's articles are rarely list because journalist write alot of articles. An author (not named Stephen King) doesn't write alot of books and usually only one a year, so listing them would be appropriate. What makes an article worth mentioning? It winning a big award or caused alot of press to be written about it. Same goes for academic articles. Bgwhite (talk) 17:01, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanations. I'll put the external links back in, if you haven't done so already, and add some more that I think further demonstrate notability. As I have time, I'll try to incorporate some of them into the article, as appropriate, and add them to the References. Thanks again. J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 20:10, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

I've added several external links to reviews of Marshall's books, interviews with Marshall, etc., which I hope will demonstrate notability. I don't feel at liberty to remove the "multiple issues", "notability", or "citations" tags, myself. When you have time, would you kindly take a look at the page and see if I've brought it up to standard? If not, I'd appreciate more guidance on how to do that. Happy Thanksgiving, if you celebrate that holiday. J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 18:13, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Read Twelver Talk page

Tabarie is sunni — Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.253.50.62 (talk) 20:52, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Yup, a Sunni on a Shi'a template doesn't sound right. I'm asking questions about. Bgwhite (talk) 23:10, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

BG19bot issue with section header fixing

Hello. I just wanted to let you know that BG19bot may be having some issues with its "section header fix" function, as shown here. It seems that the fact that there was already one equals sign on one side of the section header was not recognized by the bot. Steel1943 (talk) 12:03, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

There were two problems before the bot and one after the bot. Section headings cannot start with just one =, so the bot fixed that. It didn't fix the unbalanced equal signs. Bgwhite (talk) 21:07, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting

For an admin, this edit shows a remarkable lack of WP:CIVIL. If a bot edit fouls up a page, it is likely to be reverted by a human. The reflist was fine immediately before the bot edit, and fine immediately after it. What went wrong here, I don't know, but removing the previous talk page thread with a tart edit summary was incivil.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:36, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Let's see, first off you dished off an insult. As the instructions on this page says, I will delete messages that contain insults.

It wasn't a bot. It was done using AWB and you don't usually preview an AWB edit.

By reverting my edit, you threw out all the fixes I made. Including a broken bracket and broken ref. This is called a blind revert. If you saw the revision, you would have noticed a glaring error that was fixed and where I accidentally broke the ref. If you don't fully understand an edit, ask, don't revert and insult the person making the edit. Bgwhite (talk) 08:53, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

I fail to see any insult here, please fix the thin skin. If there was a glaring error, I missed it and the revert fixed it. As stated previously, manually previewing this edit would have spotted the problem. This was therefore entirely avoidable.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:58, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Stop giving me the preview manually stuff and stop with the insults. Again, I'm using AWB. You don't preview manually. It's like the Matrix, you see the code. Your edit summary was I don't understand what is going on, well then ask questions. Therefore, if you read the edit summary and saw the diff, this was entirely avoidable. Bgwhite (talk) 09:11, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

On finding that the entire reflist section had gone missing, my main goal was to get it back again as quickly as possible. The revert was not blind, as it was previewed to check that it caused the reflist to reappear. I am not an expert on AWB, and would rather have had a slightly flawed reflist in the article than none at all. This is why I don't use tools, all of my edits are previewed before saving.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:19, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

AWB damage control party

I would like to thank you for helping to clean up the mess I made recently on those u-boat articles. As the saying goes: to err is human but to really mess things up you need a computer. Thanks again, ÄDA - DÄP VA (talk) 19:49, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

ÄDA - DÄP, no problem. I'm usually cleaning up other people's mistakes, while making some myself. Of course, according to my mother-in-law, I'm one huge mistake that can only make more mistakes. Bgwhite (talk) 00:09, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 30 November

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

• On the Show das Poderosas page, your edit caused a cite error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:26, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Bgwhite. You have new messages at Captain Assassin!'s talk page.
Message added 19:58, 1 December 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Sportsguy17 :) (click to talk • contributions) 19:58, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Galloping Bungalows: The Rise and Demise of the American House Trailer aka David A. Thornburg

User:Bgwhite, I stumbled across this page: Galloping Bungalows: The Rise and Demise of the American House Trailer and wondered if one obscure mention in an obscure journal would make the book notable. But then I noticed the article is basically just a very sloppily moved over article about one David A. Thornburg. I can't find a deletion discussion for Thornburg or this book anywhere in the logs, so if there is one, or if you could do one, just write me a note back here so I can slap one big fat Delete on it. TuckerResearch (talk) 06:26, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Tuckerresearch, I did a Prod on Thornburg. One of the things I said in the Prod was, "If the book is notable, then an article should be made about the book with this redirected there." The creating editor did move the page just after the Prod. The book is mentioned in more places than just one obscure journal. My "area of expertise" is biographies, not non-fiction books. Some things are very obvious to keep or delete, but I'm not certain about this book. So, I'm not comfortable placing a Prod or AfD tag on the article. As a historian, you would have a better idea than me. DGG is also an expert in academic areas and is the person I'd ask about this.

On a side note, Thurber, Texas is a very interesting article. I'm jealous that you researched an interesting subject for your thesis and dissertation. Bgwhite (talk) 07:11, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks for asking me to comment. I would be prepared to defend it as is, but it would be much better to find at least one other book review. Looking at WorldCat, the easiest way to start, which lists some but not all academic book reviews for recent academic books, I find 3 others: see here. Please add them. I or any librarian can help you look for additional ones, but it isn't necessary--these are fully sufficient for notability. BTW, Technology & Culture is not an obscure journal -- it's the leading US journal in the field of history of technology. It would help but is not essential to have some quotes for the book reviews, if you can, add a sentence in the footnote. If you don't have access, I do , and will add some on Monday. Add, FWIW, I know of the book, & I have been meaning to read it.
• As for the author, if he should write another book, then there might be justification for an article on him. At any rate, there should be redirectd from his name, both with and without the initial. I'll check if there is any other justification DGG ( talk ) 18:18, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks guys, for looking at this. I'm of the opinion that not every book should get an article, just because it's been reviewed here and there. Why don't I add mine?!?! I think we should one day revisit criterion #1 in Wikipedia:Notability (books) as almost any non-fiction book published by a university press or respectable press will eventually be reviewed in a journal or two. But thanks for taking a look. TuckerResearch (talk) 21:08, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

The Friendship Barnstar

		The Friendship Barnstar
		Hello Bgwhite, I'm confused what to give you at this moment :). But I'm really happy to have you standing by me always and now I'll try not to disappoint you, thanks a lot. Assassin! No, Captain Assassin! ( T - C - G ) 17:35, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Premier league fixtures

Hi. I saw that you removed the comment surrounding the PL fixtures in 2013–14 Aston Villa F.C. season. I reverted that change because the law says we are not allowed to show upcoming PL fixtures. The most recent discussion on WT:FOOTY can be read at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football#La Liga fixtures copyright?, and the rules here. QED237 (talk) 20:16, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Restrictions

What kind of restrictions do I have to follow now? Can I create new articles about politics in Pakistan and also some biography articles about notable persons? I'm not stepping forward without asking you now. -- Assassin! No, Captain Assassin! ^{( T - C - G )} 03:39, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Captain Assassin! I wouldn't create an article right now, even with permission. Lets wait a month or so. For now, create and work on them in your userspace. This way, it will be a good article from the moment it was created as an article. Much harder to criticize a "finished" article than one that was just started. It also gives time to show you aren't up to any "usual activities".

Edit away on film articles or any other topic. I would stay away from any articles in which you were involved in a conflict with somebody else, especially RUP. If somebody reverts your edit, don't you revert it back. Talk first. As always, leave me a message anytime. Bgwhite (talk) 05:57, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Yeah I understand, these political articles are so simple, just constituencies. But if you don't want me to do that in mean time, I'll not. And I'm away from film articles and any other articles caused conflicts until you permit me to touch them. Thanks. -- Assassin! No, Captain Assassin! ^{( T - C - G )} 11:16, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Kachwaha

Hi, back in mid-June you semi-protected Kachwaha for a month because of vandalism (see here). The same issues returned from mid-July, involving exactly the same well-sourced statements from people such as William Pinch published by presses such as that of the University of California. It seems basically to be me against everyone else, although there have been occasional historically similar reverts of IPs by Anna Frodesiak (talk · contribs) etc. I'm going to leave a note on the talk page but I wonder if you would be prepared to keep an eye on the article for a few weeks? You are not commonly associated with caste-related issues and that should be a bonus. - Sitush (talk) 05:40, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Sitush, as always, bug me when you need something. I will put the article on my watchlist. I hope you are going on holiday and enjoy some time off. However, I'm well aware of caste issues. I'm married and have a dog, so I'm the lowest caste in my wife's household. Bgwhite (talk) 05:47, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, although I'm going nowhere at present and when I do it'll be my next stay in hospital :( The idea of having an uninvolved person keeping an eye on things is attractive in a situation where I am reverting so often & am basically doing so in a "one against many" situation. I've just left a note on the talk page. Put your flameproof suit on ... - Sitush (talk) 05:52, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Idle curiosity

Hi. Not a complaint, just idle curiosity about what was being fixed here. Edit adds a line after an image, removes a blank space at the end of a blockquote and swaps the order of two references? No big deal, just wondering. Nice btw that the bot came by the page, this is my least interesting article so its nice to have visitors, even automated ones. Euryalus (talk) 09:12, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Euryalus, no problem. I'll take a question over a complaint any day. As the summary mentioned, the bot was there because a punctuation mark was after a reference. A list gets created everyday with these type of articles. Every 2-4 days, I run the bot on the list. As you have been going gang busters on writing the article, you probably fixed the error before the bot got there. Bgwhite (talk) 09:23, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

No worries. The bot is always welcome to stop by. We're almost at the exciting point of this new article, where Baker buys 25 acres of land for a bottle of rum and gets a fish named after him. So it's all upside from here, I can tell you. Euryalus (talk) 12:06, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Bot scrambling reference order

I think edits like this are potentially a problem. While I don't know if the reference order was all that important in this case, in general editors sometimes think carefully about what order to cite refs in. For example, sometimes a review cites a primary source and you want the two to appear together in a longer list. I think you should consider putting the bot on hold until you fix the swapping. Wnt (talk) 14:38, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Reference should go in the order they are in the article... [3][4][5] and not [5][3][4]. Look at any Featured Article. In the edit summary, this is part of the "Do general fixes and cleanup if needed". The relevant section is Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/General fixes#ReorderReferences (ReorderReferences). Bgwhite (talk) 22:28, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, I'm not fond of that idea but I'll concede [21] is there, so I'll withdraw my comment. Wnt (talk) 23:24, 5 December 2013 (UTC)