I believe most editors use Incorrect English, the second most common is American English, followed by Indian English and British English. -- Arnd Bergmann
Welcome to my talk page
I make plenty of errors - if you are here to complain about a tag or a warning, please assume good faith.
If I have erred, don't hesitate to tell me, but being rude will get you nowhere.
I will not tolerate anyprofanity or extreme rudeness. If used in any way, it will be erased and your message not read.
Archives
Bot archives discussions after 30 days of inactivity into the latest archive
Juhayman al-Otaybi wikipedia page having a tag Infobox criminal, I want to include his education as 'Islamic University of Madinah' at the right side, could not edit the article at the right side, just I has made the changes to the main article. . Juhayman al-Otaybi neither represented to Umm Al-Qura University nor he was student. But still Google Knowledge base result shows his education refers to Umm Al-Qura University, but has studied through Islamic University of Madinah. Our prime object is we don't want to see him in Google Knowledge base results as Notable Alumni. Please suggest how can we proceed to make the changes.
You added COI and POV tags to page Mohamed Ebrahim Fayad. I already tried to add enough references to subject's all books, publications and journals. This is my first page, can you please correct me where I am going wrong. Thanks -kj 16:28, 16 March 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kavishme (talk • contribs)
BgWhite- can you please explain why you keep deleting my work
Hi there!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andreas_Pl%C3%BCckthun
Thanks for reviewing my page. This was my first attempt and I appreciate your input. However please let me load the page in its current form. A scientist and researcher is often best known by his work (and collaborations) and it is important that WIKIPEDIA supports this if we want to have a representative scientific base. I am not trying to create a CV but am making an attempt at eliciting the available information in an acceptable format. We need to allows audiences to recognise who the person is, and add further relevant content! Thank you in anticipation, for your understanding of my point of view on the matter. Regards,
KamnaPruvost — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk • contribs) 12:46, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
KamnaPruvost Except the article doesn't need a long list of journal articles. You can convey the same information about his work without it, just like other articles do. Bgwhite (talk) 23:13, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
BgWhite Bgwhite : Hi again! I am not sure you understand that this is not a 'long' list at all for someone who has published over 300 articles. Also can you please point me to a Wikipedia policy that forbids contributors to put a list of work done by someone? I will be grateful for your help. I am not going to undo your changes until I hear from you, and I hope you will sen me the policy information so I am able to take appropriate action. Thank you. Regards KamnaPruvost
Regarding the references to papers, I have clearly seen those elsewhere, e.g. here
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Baker_(biochemist) Here it is integrated in the references, which I would clearly like best, as it *does* support the claims of the work. Maybe you need to understand/appreciate the concept of “peer reviewed scientific publications”
KamnaPruvost Martin Jinek's article is from German Wikipedia, that doesn't count. There is a big difference between the two article you gave and what you are doing. You are adding a list of publications. The two articles have publications as references incorporated into the text of the article. Stop doing a listing. Use the two articles as an example. Bgwhite (talk) 18:25, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your patience. However must say I am still confused as LaMona said the opposite and my article was blocked as I had put the references. But please please, can you not just revert to an older version as I am continuing to work on the article. Please be patient as this is my first try. I have removed the name Plueckthun from the publications and have also given the work as 'examples'. Can you please help by commenting rather than just deleting my efforts? Thanks Bgwhite Kamna Pruvost — Preceding unsigned comment added by KamnaPruvost (talk • contribs) 12:59, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hey thanks for that. New question, same IP hopper: Could you pending-changes protect Talk:Social work for a significant amount of time? The IP-hopper has literally vandalized (removing and/or editing other people's posts, and also blatantly lying) over the past three weeks and it's become nightmare for those trying to keep the talk-page clean. PP would let any legitimate IP posts through while allowing us to prevent vandalism. Thanks. (I can provide diffs of the vandalism if you want -- there are lots so I won't unless you request.) If you'd rather I take this to a noticeboard, I will; just let me know. Softlavender (talk) 01:23, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Bot error
Re: this, the reflist is inserted by template and so your bot is apparently blind to it. I've had to revert twice now. More generally, if your bot is ever reverted by a registered account or has the same "error" come up again on an article it has already "fixed", it needs to not repeat the same edit but should instead just leave a talk page message and move on. Thanks! postdlf (talk) 14:09, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Template was created 2 weeks ago and it's transcluded in about 50 pages. I strongly recommend that the References list is not autogenerated. -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:23, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The template was created in April 2015. Yes, it's uncommon, it's something I developed for a series of identically formatted list/table articles. They all have the same base references (pages on the SCOTUS website, varying from page to page only by date accessed and the year of the source) which is why it's autogenerated, with optional footnotes to toggle on or off as needed. It makes updating much faster and keeps the formatting completely uniform. But the main issue is we have a bot repeatedly conflicting with a live user to make an edit that is not necessary nor constructive in this instance (it causes a duplicate, empty "references" header). postdlf (talk) 14:27, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
postdlf sure. No issues with that. But for instance BG19bot does hundreds of edits per day. A single revert won't stop it. A message like this one you just left it will. -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:31, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Shouldn't a bot be programmed to react to reverts so as to prevent it from re-queuing the same "problem" article again? Maybe that's an unrealistic expectation, I don't know...I've never programmed a bot and I know it's complicated and a lot of work. postdlf (talk) 14:45, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see a rationale for why the template needs to spit out a "references list" and not just the "widely-used" references themselves. Is there a rationale for that? --Izno (talk) 15:15, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I tried it out many ways when I was developing it and settled on the current form because it caused the least layout problems and it templatized everything that remains the same across all the lists. From what I recall, having some sections generated by local code and some templatized caused layout conflicts. Also the URLs are not completely standard from year to year (the URLs have changed and the earliest ones from the last decade are available only in archived versions). But every list and every year has the same three types of general reference for the three types of opinion categories (these are the sources that give comprehensive counts for each term), so it made sense to have that reference framework automatic. Any other references to add (such as for when the opinion summaries are expanded and need secondary source cites or annotations, as in the one the bot was editing above) go in a footnotes section with a reflist. postdlf (talk) 16:34, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
How about a template containing those three refs and adding it to a ==references== section? There are other such templates. Bgwhite (talk) 18:25, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Is it just the lack of a "references" header in the local code that is triggering your bot to think it has a problem to fix? postdlf (talk) 18:47, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Its not just my bot. If I remember right, MediaWiki used to add the reference section when one is missing, but it was stopped a ~year ago. Bots now do it. The main argument is... what if somebody wants to add something to the reference section?... very confusing to anybody wanting to edit it. Long term solution (I think), it's best to go the same route others take.
On another note. The article is not accessibility friendly. Black text on green/red background is hard to impossible to read for those with colour blindness. Colour is being used to convey information, thus the blind can't "read" it. Bgwhite (talk) 19:10, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The lack of a {{reflist}} template or <references /> tag in an article's wikicode will get that article on a variety of "articles to be fixed" lists. I think that Postdlf will find that human and bot editors will continue to add the reflist template to these articles, even though it is technically not needed. The least frustrating route is probably to do things in a standard way, omitting the reflist from the rather clever templates that otherwise generate this whole page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:19, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I could exclude these pages but it would be rather uncommon and I wonder what happens if future editors want to add other sections in between the existing ones. -- Magioladitis (talk) 19:28, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I and the other editors who work in this subject area will be happy to address that when it actually happens; there's no point to talking about hypotheticals when I have no idea what other section might be appropriate to add to all of these lists (and in the decade plus these have existed, originally with bare code rather than templates, that has never happened). What the template automates is just infrastructure, which should be the same across all lists of the same specific kind. "What if an article properly renders and displays footnotes but your bot doesn't recognize that?" is an actual issue here, not a hypothetical. And note that reflist is only used under the optional "notes" header (most of these lists do not have footnotes, at least yet), not under the "references" header. Is there some dummy code that I can insert for the timebeing in the page to make the bot think it has what it's looking for (what if {{reflist}} is added in comments?), or a don't-edit redlist all of these pages could be added to to avoid bot fixes at all? I'd be happy to populate that. I'd hope a human would actually look at the fact that the article renders properly rather than putting their blinders on and just seeing that something isn't present in the local code. But I'd also hope that, just as editors get notifications that their edits have been reverted, that bots would as well that would prevent them from just repeating the same edit. I'm fairly sure Cluebot responds differently if that happens, for example. postdlf (talk) 19:55, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
postdlf I am sorry for all this trouble. Unfortunately, there is no dummy code that you could add. I will have to modify the core code of AWB to skip these pages once and for good. Maybe we should move towards the solution you suggest and create a list of pages that do not need a reflist template. -- Magioladitis (talk) 19:58, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In this context, it would be every page that transcludes Template:SCOTUS-justice-listframe. Would it be simpler to tell it to skip pages that contain that template rather than to name the individual pages? There are some older lists in this group for which I have yet to update the code to the current version, and every year a new batch are created...so the list of articles would always be expanding. postdlf (talk) 20:05, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
postdlf yes. This is how it works. We have 2 more cases of templates like these but to be honest this case is the most extreme since it produces a lot of text and it is located at the bottom. -- Magioladitis (talk) 20:15, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
postdlf As Jonesey95 said above, this will not stop other bots and human editors from doing the same thing. The "easy" fix is to add it to the Whitelist, but this only stops the article from showing up on the list. All bots and humans will still "fix" the article. The better and long term solution is to have the article behave like all other articles. Adding it to the whitelist will not solve anything. Bgwhite (talk) 21:49, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"The better and long term solution is to have the article behave like all other articles." Maybe you've overstated what you meant to say, but that sounds like sacrificing innovation just to accommodate automated/bot editing. But I'll think about whether there's a way to accomplish that without sacrificing function; in the meantime I'll create the whitelist and revert as needed. postdlf (talk) 22:39, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In addition, this template (in doing at least this if not the rest of it) falls afoul of WP:TG: "Templates should not normally be used to store article text, as this makes it more difficult to edit the content. They should also not be used to "collapse" or "hide" content from the reader."
In this regard, if you don't change the template yourself, I am happy to send it to WP:TFD to see if they agree. They probably will tell you to change the behavior in the same way as we are requesting. --Izno (talk) 21:52, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
...and I actually may have thought to a solution for this particular issue that would let us have our cake and eat it too. I'm going to test in my sandbox. postdlf (talk) 22:57, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't be disingenuous in suggesting that your approach is better in that you must have it your way by modification of the various and sundry automated tools making edits similar to this rather than the modification of the template.
I have no inclination to seek feedback at any of those venues given that I believe I know what a Wikipedia-wide consensus would be (see WP:CONLEVEL).
WP:TFD isn't a deletion process, and in fact I wouldn't seek deletion. I would seek modification to do what we keep suggesting you do, which is to modify the template to not spit out its own reflist and references section. I believe that's trivial to do, but I didn't get that far into the mess of table within a table within a table code of a template. --Izno (talk) 02:00, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid we're not understanding each other very well. Please do drop a note on my talk page and we can continue there. AFAIC, the issue that brought me here is resolved (thanks, Magioladitis). postdlf (talk) 02:13, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Postdlf It's not resolved. Bots and people will still add a ref header. People still have problems understanding the template and are unable to add material to the reference section. Only a band-aid has been applied. The template is still unusable to the blind and partially usable to the colour blind. If Izno's description of a table inside a table, ... it means only you can change the template. Only you can add to the ref section. We will all leave Wikipedia and people will want to edit the template or add refs. Wikipedia is where everyone can edit a page. I can only do easy to medium templates, so please work with Izno to improve it. I don't want to sound like I hate what you've done. It's a page where you can just look and understand what is going on. It's easy to get the info. It's very well thought out. It is the best data oriented page I've seen. Bgwhite (talk) 06:25, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, of course it can be changed so the footer sections are not added by template; it was originally set up that way, and I guess if this can't resolved to everyone's satisfaction it can be be changed back. But it represents a lot of time to change all the pages that use it (and then more editing time required to update the pages when that's not all templatized), not any coding thought or development. It can also be made more flexible quite easily, so that additional general references could be added (not a footnote), but so far I haven't seen anyone propose such a reference. Note again that the "reference" header section isn't what brought me here, but rather the footnotes under "notes", which anyone can add to freely with the existing code the same way as with any other page. What's triggering it, the presence of ref tags in the local article code while {{nowiki}} is not in the local code but instead only transcluded?
So I've temporarily removed the frame template that generates the header and footers to make the reflist local; it took me about 15 mins just to alter this one page.[1] I can of course make a new template that only generates the header, but again that still represents a big investment of time, first to make that change and later to update these pages, and to create new ones. The less that is templatized, the more time it also takes to update individual pages if there are any other formatting changes (which should, of course, be completely consistent across all the lists), and over the 11 years I've been creating/maintaining these, I've had to make many changes just to keep up with alterations in how the wikicode functions. And while I've seen a lot of concern raised here for hypothetical editors wanting to make hypothetical changes, I don't see how editors would find it more difficult to change straightforward variables in a template than to navigate through raw table code and markup. postdlf (talk) 14:12, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
postdlf thanks for all the effort you did and you do. I really appreciate the work you did with these pages. You even acted faster than my standards :) For example, I thought it was my job to create the whitelist of pages. You even did that! Thanks, thanks, thanks. -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:41, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And many more of your articles are cluttering up CheckWiki. I'm not pleased with this. Everybody has to bend over backwards because you don't want to do what everybody else has done... use a template for references. Instead, you are causing problems and causing changes everywhere else. Let me guess, either you have a PhD or a JD. Bgwhite (talk) 05:21, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Magioladitis' fix apparently didn't work, so I've restored the whitelist and the nobots template. So far your bot is the only one I've encountered on these pages at all. If that doesn't work, and we can't think of another solution, then I guess I'll have to make a change to the template to resolve this.
Maybe if I understand better what you're working from... Does the whitelist prevent the articles from showing up in the Checkwiki list? What generates that list, and how often? What if {{reflist}} is added in comment tags? postdlf (talk) 13:49, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! You seem to have screwed up some article layouts, such as here, especially regarding coats of arms which were nicely displayed before.
I fixed one, then discovered more. Perhaps you'd like to clean all that up yourself? Would be nice. Thx! --SergeWoodzing (talk) 20:48, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like the problem was you were using repeated uses of <center> to put the caption centered below the image, which seems to work but looks in the code like an error rather than purposeful. Try doing this instead. postdlf (talk) 01:04, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the tip and for fixing things there! I copied that procedure from another article where someone else had used it. The problem, however, seems to me to be that such an experienced editor as this one wouldn't check h edits to see if they looked OK. That's what left the layout looking bad, no? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 09:30, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed all now I think, with that method - thanx again! Please note that I wasn't trying to pass the buck. Four of those articles were never touched by me re: arms layout prior to the layout problem caused by User:Bgwhite not cheking h edits. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 09:37, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
{{multiple image |caption_align=center |align=center |direction=horizontal
|image1=Coat of arms of Prince Wilhelm, Duke of Södermanland (1884-1907).svg |width1=205 |caption1=Wilhelm's coat of arms as prince of Sweden and Norway, Duke of [[Södermanland]] 1884 to 1905
|image2=Coat of arms of Prince Wilhelm, Duke of Södermanland (1907).svg |width2=150 |caption2=Wilhelm's coat of arms as prince of Sweden, Duke of [[Södermanland]] after 1907
}}
{{multiple image |caption_align=center |align=center |direction=horizontal
|image1=Armoiries de la Princesse Marguerite du Danemark.svg |width1=250 |caption1=Marital arms of Princess Margaretha of Sweden and Denmark
|image2=Princesse Margaretha du Danemark.svg |width2=155 |caption2=Arms as displayed in [[Riddarholmen Church]] in [[Stockholm]]
}}
I saw your major clean up on this page. I agree they are poorly sourced and seemed promotional. However, I think some of that should probably be brought back more along WP:NPOV to add content to a stub. I might have time for some source researching but I hoped you could help. Thanks! I would have asked the author but they seem like they did IP editing. >> M.P.Schneider,LC (parlemus • feci) 16:49, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
MPSchneiderLC Add back whatever you think is appropriate. Beware, there's also copyright problems. For example, everything in the ==YOUTH 2000== section has been copied. Unfortunately, I know nothing on the topic. Bgwhite (talk) 04:42, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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 mobile web interface no longer suggests HiDPI thumbnails. This is to take up less bandwidth on slow or expensive connections. [3]
Wikimedia has a new backup data center in Dallas. Because of planned work on this, you will be able to read but not edit the wikis for a short period of time on both 22 March and 24 March. This could be postponed to April 18. You might lose edits if you try to save during this time. Because of a test, there will also be a couple of minutes where you can't edit the wikis on 15 March starting 07:00 UTC. You can read more about the server work. There will be more notifications and updates about this.
Administrators and other users with advanced permissions will need to have an 8-byte long passwords. This change takes place on 15 March. Users with too short passwords will be asked to change password the next time they log in. This was decided in a discussion on Meta and is because they can use tools that can hurt the wikis. [5]
The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 15 March. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 16 March. It will be on all wikis from 17 March (calendar).
The buttons in interfaces will be simplified. Instead of white, red, green and blue buttons, in future there will only be white, red and blue ones. [6]
Meetings
You can join the next meeting with the VisualEditor team. During the meeting, you can tell developers which bugs you think are the most important. The meeting will be on 15 March at 19:00 (UTC). See how to join.
Wicked, so next time it's an article on some kind of book I can search within wiki for ISBN....that's sweet. Thanks for your help with the article. The websites i was managing to find the isbn listed in were pretty limited, so that rocks. I'm gonna review the edits you made in a little while so I can learn the processes and protocols a bit better, and have les people cleaning up after me in the future ;) Cheers, guys..Panglossx (talk) 12:58, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
IP 117.213.16.96 here,
The IP-Hopper term seemed to be put for misleading and harassment. Above that the IP I used also was added to IP-Hopper by a certain editor Jim1138. It shows rogue nature and it seems to be in violation to Wikipedia:Harassment. Moreover that same editor seems to add IP's as it goes under the heading, when IP's are already shown. It would be more helpful if you can review the said editors attempts read along with http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-trending-35787730 If such activities are validated for some certain sakes. This sort of anti-social attempts will continue to mask under policies. Even the edit history is also terms this IPs as rouge
(http://www.thefreedictionary.com/rogue) with vehement condescension which already shows siding(https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Cassianto&diff=709619439&oldid=709619332) of that editor. If time allows, I would be glad if you can review it and provide a statement to that talk page regarding this subject and on other concerns raised in the talk page. 59.98.249.148 (talk) 17:11, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand what you are talking about. I put protection on the talk page as vandalism was happening. You were removing posts of other users. IPs were vandalizing by removing templates on the page. On the article, Jim1138 was reverting you because you didn't add references to your additions and the you used learnhowtobecome on one paragraph. That doesn't look like a reliable source. You've been repeatedly told by multiple editors why your additions were not correct. Wikipedia works by consensus. 6-7 editors saying the same thing is consensus. It may or may not be right, but that is how it works. Bgwhite (talk) 17:41, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Upper cases for Templatenames in Templatetiger
Hello, please take a look to the discussion and make a short comment:
I saw you said that blank lines should not be put in indented lists. WP.LISTGAP said that colons could be used to put invisible lines into these lists, so I tried that. It didn't work. The lines disappeared altogether. I found another suggestion that asterisks could be used. As far as I can see, that works just fine. I hope it doesn't have unforeseen effects on people who use Russian keyboards, or whatever. DOwenWilliams (talk) 00:16, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
DOwenWilliams Thanks for the article's name. What you had actually made it worse. The * made another list, so you had multiple lists containing one item. I've edited the page to add the blank space you were looking for and to make it one list of many items. I'm sure there are other ways of doing it, but this what popped first in my head. Bgwhite (talk) 04:38, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker)@DOwenWilliams: It's not "Bgwhite's way", it's an accessibility issue, and is explained at WP:LISTGAP. Whatever symbol you use to mark up a list - colon, asterisk or hash - every line (and thus every list item) must begin with the same symbol, otherwise you get different list types intermixed - which causes no end of hassle for users of screenreader software. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:04, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. WP.LISTGAP says (as I read it) that if colons are used to indent the lines of a list, then a colon on its own will produce a blank line. That makes perfect sense, but I tried it and it didn't work. The line disappeared altogether. If you look at the edits I recently made to Parabola, you'll see what I did, and what happened. Bgwhite later did a couple of edits which work just fine, but don't involve using additional colons. That's what I called his way. It certainly wasn't LISTGAP's way. It seems that LISTGAP needs improvement. DOwenWilliams (talk) 22:29, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Where it says "if a space is needed ..." that means a space in the edit window, not in the rendered page. In the rendered page, it simply isn't there, because HTML Tidy has detected the empty list item, and deleted it. --Redrose64 (talk) 00:13, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Then you need something that isn't going to be stripped out by either the MediaWiki software or HTML Tidy, and which won't cause accessibility problems.
If the lines of the list are plain text, then blank lines aren't needed. But if the lines are mathematical formulae, with fractions, superscripts, subscripts, etc, extending well above and below the midline, then consecutive lines can get very close together and are not easily read. Putting a blank line between them makes them much easier to read and understand. DOwenWilliams (talk) 20:40, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Reference errors on 18 March
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that some edits performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. They are as follows:
Varna International Ballet Competition/Reverted to previous version_2
Hi, Bgwhite,
I wrote you, about the changes you made to the Varna International Ballet Competition page. You told me that we should send Declaration of consent for all enquiries, and so we have sent all the necessary information, but still have no answer about the text, that was 3 months ago. The e-mail was send by Dimitar Emilov Dimitrov, Chairman of Varna International Ballet Competition Foundation on 22.01.2016. I do know that there must be a lot of work, but 3 months is a lot of time.
Can you tell me if there is something that we can do?
(Тhank you for the help)
Аредел It can take sometime for a response as the OTRS people are usually swamped, but three months is too long. Where did you send the email too? Bgwhite (talk) 17:56, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi,
the email was send to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, on 01.22.2016 from the official email adress of the Varna International Ballet Competition Foundation - varnaibc@gmail.com. if you want I can send you the contents of the letter. --Аредел (talk) 09:56, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Problems
Wikimedia has a new backup data center in Dallas. The Wikimedia Technology department planned to test it this week. This will take place the week of April 18 instead. You can read more about the server work. There will be more notifications and updates about this.
In Firefox, the visual editor would sometimes just jump down to the bottom of the page when you double-clicked on a table cell. This has now been fixed. [7]
Changes this week
It will now be easier to list IP addresses that don't have to solve CAPTCHAs. [8]
You will now be able to mark Echo notifications as unread. [9]
The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 21 March. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 22 March. It will be on all wikis from 23 March (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 22 March at 19:00 (UTC). See how to join.
Future changes
URLs in the recent changes IRC feed will no longer be rewritten to unencrypted HTTP. This could be a breaking change for bots dependent on the IRC feed. This will happen on May 2. [10]
Moeez_Shah Everything should be verifiable, so personal knowledge isn't a reference. Tables containing over a hundred names of who is director of this and that is not needed. It doesn't provide any information about the organization. Having it all in caps and bolded just makes it worse as that is SHOUTING. Essentially every reference about the organization comes from itself or the University. There needs to be more 3rd party references. Bgwhite (talk) 20:42, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
BgWhite Could you define 3rd Party References, and Guide me through the proper procedure of explaining the hierarchy on Wikipedia because the Hierarchy is important and especially for the Committee Panel, you show me the proper way to define it so i can proceed. ASAP — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moeez Shah (talk • contribs) 11:20, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Moeez Shah A 3rd party, independent reference is a reference that doesn't come from Neroon Kot Model United Nation, the University it is associated with and any person associated with Neroon Kot. Let's say I add an article titled "Bgwhite". References in the article only come from me. The references I've written could be truthful or made up. There isn't a way to verify the info. See WP:3PARTY for more info.
The hierarchy is important to you, but not important from the Wikipedia standpoint. The article tells about your organization. The average reader doesn't know who these people are. It's not of any interest to the average reader. It is only interesting for people of your organizations, but the Wikipedia article isn't for them, it's for the average reader. Adding an external link at the bottom pointing to where the info can be found would be acceptable.
BgWhite I have made some amendments and described it in easiest way possible, kindly review it and tell me about the mistakes or anything else that should not be there or violating the Wikipedia rules and regulations.
Moeez Shah Looks better. I fixed the section headers. Could you change the all CAPS, ie THE ADVISORY BOARD -> The Advisory Board. Other than that, you've done a big improvement on the page. Bgwhite (talk) 18:12, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Linking to Danish Wikipedia
Hallo, While creating Edith Arendrup I found that we had a Danish Wikipedia article about her husband, though he was a redlink in English Wikipedia. I listed that as a "See also", as this seemed useful, but you deleted it. I've now found a way to link inline to the Danish article, but this now no longer shows a red link to inspire readers to create the English Wikipedia article. Is this the right way to do it? PamD07:54, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And on "nee": yes, I'm happy with your edit - I meant to go back and fix it later, must learn the keyboard shortcut for e-acute, as it would be quicker than messing round with "special characters". In Word my spellchecker fixes it for me. PamD07:58, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And, by the way, the formatting of this talk page made it impossible for me to comment while on my mobile - the template which provides the fancy border manages to suppress all "edit" icons except for the leading quote. Just for info. PamD07:58, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
PamD Yes, you did it correctly. In certain cases, adding the {{ill}} template would be better. This shows the wikilink in red, but also gives the link to the Danish article. Once an article has been created, the link to the Danish article automagically goes away. Using the template in Arendrup's article would be the best option. Bgwhite (talk) 08:08, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I thought there had to be a way to provide a redlink and a helpful link to the Danish article - done it now. I wonder what the Danish equivalent is, so I can reciprocate?! PamD08:16, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks - yes, I discovered that through the left-hand column, but then thought it seemed a bit pushy to create a redlink over there so used the other form of link - and Google translate for a Danish version of my edit summary (this edit). Thanks for your help. PamD08:24, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Becky Cloonan / TOME
Hi, you wrote
“
TOME Volume 1: "The Months That Followed" does not equal TOME, Vol1: Vampirism. The ISBN is also bad.
”
"The Months That Followed" is the name of Cloonan's short story inside TOME Volume 1.
TOME Volume 1 DOES equal TOME, Vol1.
Vampirism is the name of the first volume, but adding that might make it even more confusing (since it's already confusing as it is.)
ISBN is taken from the address I provided. Seems the book wasn't widely distributed, so naturally the ISBN isn't recorded in any databases, but it IS in the book.
I don't think any of this is a reason enough to delete an entire entry from a bibliography.
91.122.23.27 The problem is... from a reader's standpoint, it looks like the name of book is "TOME Volume 1: The Months That Followed". Add in the bad ISBN and it looks like there is no such book. This is why I deleted it in the first place. You need to mention the books name and then say the short story's name.
I've tried finding an ISBN or OCLC number for it (TOME, Vol1: Vampirism), but I don't see one. Comic book publishers (I really hate Japanese publishers) often include a bad ISBN. As this was a limited run of 200 books, they probably didn't want to spend the money to get an ISBN. Could you give the URL link instead? This way a person can atleast find more information about. Bgwhite (talk) 00:20, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It'd be weird to single out "TOME Volume 1: The Months That Followed" as this one example since every other entry there follows the same pattern - title of the book in italics with volume # where neccessary, colon, title of the issue/creator's story inside in quotation marks. I really don't see where you could possibly put a URL there; besides, if you google TOME Volume 1, the first seven results are related to this book.
The book is out there, the assigned ISBN is on it, there's a story by Becky Cloonan in it - guess it's safe to say it should be on her page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.122.23.27 (talk) 00:40, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I arrived at the page because of the bad ISBN, that's why I focused on that book. There is no ISBN assigned to the book. Anyone can put up a bad ISBN on a webpage. The book's name is "TOME, Vol1: Vampirism", not "TOME Volume 1: The Months That Followed". A URL doesn't take up any space, put it on the title. The idea is for people to find the book. The average person cannot as it currently stands. Bgwhite (talk) 01:33, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am Books Nash.I am the creator of article Glenn Eagleston. I saw that you proposed to delete my article because:- Does not meet notability guidelines. Did not receive Medal of Honor. Was not a General. Did not play an important roll in a significant event. Did not lead a large group into combat.
I would like to remind you that, Col. Glenn Eagleston was the youngest squadron commander of 9th Air Force.He is the leading ace of Ninth Air Force, like Francis Gabreski of Eighth Air Force and Richard Bong of Fifth Air Force.Col. Eagleston was also one of the highly decorated airmen with Distinguished Service Cross,Silver Star,Legion of Merit, Distinguished Flying Cross AND Croix De Guerre. There are many pilots below the score of 18 having their articles Wikipedia.There are also pilots simply with Distinguished Flying Cross or Silver Star having articles in Wikipedia.Aces who have mastered the challenges of combat flying in two different wars, those who have succeeded in both piston and jet engine aircraft, deserve special mention in the pantheon of great aviators. Glenn Eagleston was such a pilot, flying Mustangs in WWII and F-86 Sabre jets in Korea.So, I hope you understand and revoke this deletion of the article.Books Nash (talk) 11:40, 24 March 2016 (GMT)
Books Nash Those are the requirement to receive an article and he doesn't meet them. Being the youngest commander isn't notable. Medals below Medal of valor doesn't count. Many, many soldiers have received multiple medals. Alot of pilots in that era flew both piston and jets. I'm not diminishing what Eagleston (family member?) did. He probably did more than alot of generals. There are 5+ million articles on Wikipedia and we can't patrol them all. If you tell me the articles, I can see why they are there and delete them if the don't meet the requirements. FYI... talk message go at the bottom of the page. There's a "new section" button at the top to start a new message. Bgwhite (talk) 07:54, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There are many pilots, who have scored below the kills achieved by Col. Eagleston and yet they have articles in Wikipedia.Col. Eagleston is one of Europe's Top 20 Best Aces and he should deserve attention. He fought against a enemy committed in racial cleansing and conquering of all Europe.Besides, there are many military biography articles, which barely have one paragraph.I worked hard to find all sources and images to make this article.So, can you spare this article from deletion?He is also inducted in Utah's Aviation Hall of Fame.It is necessary we must bring attention of any of our veterans who fought for our freedom.I hope you understand. Books Nash (talk) 12:10, 24 March 2016 (GMT)
Books Nash There are about 40 aces in WW2 ahead of him for the US. How about you remove the deletion tag as you clearly are contesting it an I'll ask some of the military editors what they think. Bgwhite (talk) 08:27, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed your reversion, which included my work as well as that of an anonymous user. There were more reversion from anonymous sources than mine. Did you object to my contribution? If so, can I ask why? All the best, --Achim Hering (talk) 15:02, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Achim Hering I wasn't sure what you were doing. On Phil Snyder, you ended his entry with "professor at the [[University of", which included the removal of a reference. Not sure why you removed Cheryl Tiegs or Robert Vaughn. Adding the photo of Douglas H. Evans was unnecessary. No offence to Evans, but he isn't "famous" to have the photo there.
About Douglas H. Evans, you need to add some references as there are currently none. Refs need to be independent and from a third party. As it stands now, it could be put up for deletion. Bgwhite (talk) 18:01, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for pointing this out. I will do that. Usually I put in external links below. I'll have to figure out about in-line certifications. Best regards,--Achim Hering (talk) 18:51, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am puzzled by changes you say I made concerning Phil Snyder, Cheryl Tiegs and Robert Vaughan. I have zero interest in those individuals and would not be motivated to make any changes to anything about them. Unless I did something inadvertently on the computer, or maybe someone used my identity, I am baffled. --Achim Hering (talk) 18:56, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'll pull a Ronald Reagan on that one: "I have no recollection of that." I am an inclusionist, not a deletionist and have nothing against nor any interest in those people. Must be a computer fart.--Achim Hering (talk) 15:16, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Section parameter is part of cite book
Yes, it is, but... here is what I see in Multiple integral, Ref. 5 : 'Lewin, Jonathan (2003). "16.6". An interactive introduction to mathematical analysis. Cambridge.' Do you see the same? Are you satisfied by this? Do you believe that a reader will understand that this "16.6" is a section number? Boris Tsirelson (talk) 18:03, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Tsirel I arrived at the page to remove }} from "16.6}}". So, my primary objective was to remove that. When you reverted, you restored the }}.
I'd say you have a point, except this is a "complex" math article. Does the average reader know what 193 or 94 (10) in the refs above it? We use that notation on any article, but "16.6" is a little more obscure. The two reasons to keep "16.6" as is: 1) People reading the article understand the syntax of refs. 2) If a reader ingests the refs into their reference software, "section=16.6" will be ingested, while your way won't. This is called COinS and the cite templates use it. Bgwhite (talk) 18:25, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Tsirel: Where books have section and subsection numbering as a means for uniquely identifying a passage, I use the |at= parameter, as in |at=section 16.6 - this cannot be used in conjunction with |page=, so if the page number is also important to have, I would put |at=section 16.6, p. 123 or whatever was appropriate. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:21, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thank you, I did so. For a human reader it is the same as the previous version (by Joel B. Lewis). For software, probably, "sect=" would be better, which probably shows that, again, the template is not the best. Boris Tsirelson (talk) 07:05, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like the bot correctly recognized that hoax tags shouldn't go in multiple issues, but it removed the hoax tag from the multiple issues box without re-adding it anywhere else in the article (requiring manual intervention). The expected treatment is that it move the hoax tag outside of the box. Appable (talk) 12:51, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Appable You are confusing the bot's edit with Gottagotospace's edit and also gave the wrong diff. The bot did not remove the hoax tag. It moved the hoax tag into the multiple issues box, not out of. I can't find anything about where the hoax tag should go, so it's best to ask the experts.... @GoingBatty and Magioladitis:. Bgwhite (talk) 18:29, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@GoingBatty: The bot's edit summary made it seem like it was just trying to fix the reflist issue so I assumed that it was just trying to fix that error and only switched the hoax tag due to a bug. I didn't notice/understand "Do general fixes if a problem exists" (which might cover moving the hoax tag) because it was 3:50AM and it's not like my brain works perfectly at all hours of the day. My primary concern about this article is that it is a hoax (I've been trying to get it deleted for a few days), so hiding the hoax disclaimer in a box (that non-editors probably won't read) with other problems seemed like a bad idea. Making the hoax disclaimer as big as possible seemed to make sense because out of all the problems an article could have, I think that large amounts of misinformation would be the biggest issue and thus this would need to be made very clear so people don't keep reading. I'm also new here, so it's not like I would know all the rules on where all the messages go. Even Bgwhite, who has been on Wikipedia for almost eleven years and seems to be pretty intelligent, couldn't find any guidelines regarding where the hoax tag should go. I guess that's why you (one of the experts) were pinged; if an expert had to be called in, it means that the rules are not 100% clear to others and thus I should not be blamed for making an edit that you don't understand. Even if it makes logical sense to put all issues into the issues box because technically it is another issue, it didn't make sense to me because in real life, issues have different priority levels; based on the fact that a hoax by itself is enough to get an article deleted, it seems that it is pretty high on the priority list and so it makes sense that the disclaimer should be more obvious than one of the more minor issues with the page.
I'm not saying that my opinion should overrule an experienced editor's opinion and/or Wikipedia guidelines, but since you said you didn't understand why I made the edit, I just wanted to explain it. Gottagotospace (talk) 16:50, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@GoingBatty: I have to concur with Gottagotospace that hoax tags probably shouldn't be in a multiple issues template since it's an entirely different and much more problematic issue than the other issues an article might have (which is obvious because the template is so different). Appable (talk) 03:51, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Why here for template "LAT e" there is only 5 transclusions? There are way many more. And why here I see only first parameter? I'm usually using two. OK, I can get both of them here, but still... It's related to refs? Anyway, great tool to at least simply get overview, how much templates are (really) used, what you can't get with SQL queries :) And then those templates can be cleaned-up (also with templatedata and documentation).
Maybe you could do a one-time analize of lvwiki's wikilinks? What I would like to get is list of most linked articles in ns0. I'm mostly interested in redlinks, but as it wouldn't be possible (I assume) to filter them out in scanning process, then simply "getting links" would be fine. Would like to once analyze real redlinks, not counting them with those, which comes from navboxes and other crap. How many (if the answer to initial question is yes, of course)? Well, how much you can give, it will be fine :) Maybe for count(of links to page)>5. lvwiki isn't so big, only approx.400 MB unzipped archive :) Why I'm asking this to you? As I understand, you're the main guy for templatetiger, so it's kind of the same algorithm (at least partly). Thoughts?
Edgars2007 Second question first... I only see the wikicode. I cannot interpret if a wikilink is red or blue. I can't tell what a template will write out. So, I can't help you with that one. At one time, there was a tool on the old toolserver that did this, but the person didn't port it over to his new spot. I'm assuming it can be done via a database request because I see reports for categories and files that are redlinked. I'd try doing a request at quarry.
For the first question... I noticed that {{monuments}} has ~7,200 transclusions on templatetiger, but alot less listed on lvwiki. Something strange is going on. I tried to look at the raw data, what templatetiger ingests, but it kept freezing the console. I'll try again tomorrow and if I still have problems, will download it to my computer. Bgwhite (talk) 05:58, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Second question. Yes, wikicode analysis is exactly what I need. I already have query for simply redlinks (have to clean-up that query, but it works). What I want, is one-time analysis (OK, I maybe would ask you this sometime in future) of real redlinks. Red/blue - that's why I was asking as much links, as resources and other things allows, you don't have to do that distinction between red and blue. That will be my problem :)
Edgars2007 I looked at the raw file. There are 1135 cases of "LAT e". The appears to be two instances of "LAT e" per article... assuming that, there are 567 articles with "LAT e". So, the raw file I produce "appears" ok. I'm assuming it's on the templatetiger end. Kolossos on dewiki handles template tiger. He was asked a question about templatetiger last week and he said he doesn't have much time for it. Bgwhite (talk) 22:08, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, 1135 looks too much. I usually use it only once per article (I'm the main and probably only user of that template). But OK, it's not so very important. Thanks for looking up to this. Maybe if you have the raw data in some (at least kind of) pretty table with template name and number of count, then maybe you can publish it somewhere, maybe here (you can override the stuff)? No formatting is needed, again - that would be my problem. --Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 07:15, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Reference errors on 25 March
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Adding references with Citoid was broken for approximately 6 hours on 24 March. This was fixed. [13]
Changes this week
The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 29 March. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 30 March. It will be on all wikis from 31 March (calendar).
You will be able to remove the header and footer style from User language (babel) boxes. This will make it easier to use them with other userboxes. [14]
Commons will soon have improved access to Wikidata's data. It will then be possible to access data about any concept on any page on Commons. Assistance with testing this on the beta cluster is appreciated. [15]
Wikibits.js will not be loaded by default anymore starting April 2016. Gadget and script authors should have already updated their code since the previous announcements, but there is another migration path available if needed. See wikitech-l for details.
Corrections
Last week Tech News said the new MediaWiki version would come to wikis from 21 March to 23 March. The right dates were 22 March to 24 March.
