Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
Please take a look at ] and move it to '']'' - Thanks. --] <sup><span style="color:Red;font-size:85%;">«] ♦ ] ♦ ]»</span></sup> 05:24, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
Please take a look at ] and move it to '']'' - Thanks. --] <sup><span style="color:Red;font-size:85%;">«] ♦ ] ♦ ]»</span></sup> 05:24, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
== Lesser ==
Hi Bgwhite. I'm sure that you agreed to let Lesser Cartographies be the mediator for conflicts on the Kitt page because he has experience and many Wikipedians speak highly of him, but he has made too many mistakes dealing with Duff and me, to the point where I think I have proven sufficiently ] that he is unfit to continue being the mediator for problems on the Harp Twins article. I certainly do not trust him. When I blew things out of proportion, as you said, and showed primitive behavior, it was precisely to expose his flaws and build a case against him. The elimination of the shop links isn't so bad if no clear mistakes on his part can be pointed out, but for whatever reason he has disqualified himself, in my opinion, because there ARE too many mistakes. I hope Lesser will agree to let someone else be the referee because we all know that Duff will be back sooner or later, and I really don't want Lesser to be the one in charge of negotiations. Look, you are an administrator, yet you never act like you are superior to me, and it's one of the reasons why I respect you, whereas Lesser is very insolent, which causes serious problems. Please read what I wrote when you have a moment. Thanks as always... ] (]) 07:50, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
Revision as of 07:50, 6 April 2014
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
Hello Bgwhite, I have seen that you operate one or more than one bots. I'm typing this message to ask you for some help. Actually I'm creating a new bot. Its feature are:
It will detect vandalism
Revert suspicious changes by IP users.
Detect and report repeated vandalism from a single user in 24hrs.
Will archive discussions
over all it will result a retirement of Cluebot I and Archiving bots. It will be a two in one. I have created the source code in py (python) language. But after some hard works I suddenly realised that I don't know how to implement the scripts so that the bot start working (i.e testing) and I don't know how to operate a bot by a seperate account. So, I'm here to ask if you can help me do this. Or give me instruction, how to implement it (I prefer step - by -step instructions) and how to take that bot for approval. You helps are very much appreciated, Thanks. Jim Carter (talk) 22:07, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
Jim Cartar, sorry for being late as I've been sick the past few days. You can run the bot at your home computer or at http://tools.wmflabs.org I do both methods as one runs everyday at the same time while the others run when I can watch the output. Easiest if you get it working at home first. Misplaced Pages:RFBOT is where you request approval to run a bot. You can create a secondary account anytime by using the same methods to create your user account. Just have to have the name "bot" somewhere in the username. Bgwhite (talk) 20:23, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. I'm likely to create that account within the next few weeks after some testing. I will ask you for any further help if I face any problem. Anyways, I will notify you when it's ready for use. Thank you again. Jim Carter (talk) 21:02, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please inform other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Recent software changes
The latest version of MediaWiki (1.23wmf18) was added to test wikis and MediaWiki.org on March 13. It will be added to non-Misplaced Pages wikis on March 18, and all Misplaced Pages wikis on March 20 (calendar).
You can now view smaller versions of PNG images bigger than 20 megapixels.
Hi Bgwhite, it looks like your recent fixes to the Valérie Donzelli page inadvertently ruined the formatting, making most of the content disappear. I'm new to Misplaced Pages, so I'm not sure how to fix this. Could you take a look at page and fix the formatting? chronophoto (talk) 19 March 2014 (UTC)
chronophoto, looks like Arjayay already beat me to it. There are some "problems". We can't use Misplaced Pages as a reference. Misplaced Pages is unreliable because anyone can edit. There is no need to add links to the French Misplaced Pages version of an article when one already exists in English. IMDb is also unreliable because anyone can edit, so its best not to use that as a link too. It can however be used in the external links section. Bgwhite (talk) 18:13, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
I will convey your feedback to Constycrispy (talk), who is working on this article. chronophoto (talk) 18:27 19 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the additional fixes. I am relieved they were small in number. As they were mostly "obvious" I am now wondering how I came to make those typos without noticing them myself! -- 79.67.241.255 (talk) 18:18, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
Taking you up on your offer, "Abiogenesis" could maybe do with your critical eye. :) Additionally, I suspect there may be one or two duplicate references in there. -- 79.67.241.255 (talk) 11:54, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
Hello, Bgwhite. I come to respectfully object to the blind-revert (looks like the automated revert with the Twinkle) you have done on the Automotive lighting article. You gave the reason in the edit summary, "unexplained removal of referenced material". I think you have maybe taken not a close enough look at the editwork you reverted. In it, I addressed the template/tag issues, I removed the unverifiable and questionable material (some with very old "citation needed" tags), I replaced the stroudy image with the clear image, and, the important part, I added good WP:RS refs as well as cleaning up some strange kind of formatting on some of the existing refs (e.g., the ISO symbols). Of course I don't say I made the article perfect, and maybe I might have introduced the new problems (for example, my English is not a native level). I respectfully ask if you find the new problem, please just fix it or tag it, instead of just blind/auto-revert the whole productive edit thus deleting much new improvement and referenced material, whether the editor has the IP or the logged-in name. Thank you for considering it. 24.87.84.143 (talk) 17:56, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
24.87.84.143, careful with accusations when you don't know your way around here. Twinkle does not do reverts. It was not an automated revert.
You did remove valid references. You did change and broke valid references. You broke some other things too. You removed sourced content. You did add some good material and refs. It is hard to separate the wheat from the chaff when there is one huge edit. Instead of making one huge change, you should break it up into smaller chunks. Give your reason why you removed paragraphs or references. Bgwhite (talk) 20:54, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
Hello, friend. Thank you for pointing to the references I did remove. I have replaced them (and fixing one that was rotten and no longer worked). I have also taken away the pure WP:OR fancy stories about the possible maybe future of the distributive lighting systems (swivel driving lights on mirrors, etc) that were not supported by any of the references and, according to my deep and broad search, are not supported by any evidence anywhere. They were added to the article long, long ago and never had any support at all. This is the example of "questionable/unsupported material may be removed", so I removed it, a valid thing for an editor to do on the Misplaced Pages. That is the explanation for the material removal.
Now, excuse me please: I did not make the accusation at you. I made the objection. It is different, and if it seemed like I was making the objection I will have to apologize again for my un-native English level, that does not make me un-informed or ignorant or unworthy to contribute to the Misplaced Pages, and you (Master Editor) know that. Please look again at my first comment to you here, and you will see I made the consistent effort to use the respectful tone. I am sorry if I did not fully make the success, but I do also object to the quickness you assume I "don't know my way around here", maybe because I have the IP instead of the login name (then you don't really know my contributions history on the Misplaced Pages going back how many years), and the way you revert/sweep away the valid contributions that are including the addition of the new valid refs because you don't like some other part of the edit. At the same time, you do exactly the thing what you say you don't like (remove the valid refs and the valid material from the article). I do not want to fight, that is not why I am here. There is space for every sincere contributor to make the improvements on the Misplaced Pages without getting stepped on or kicked. Thank you. 24.87.84.143 (talk) 03:17, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
Wuerzele, everything looks good. In this case, there is no need to move to a new page. You upgraded a disambig page that needed to become a real article. I did remove the disambig message at the top as it is no longer needed. Bgwhite (talk) 19:53, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
thanks so much, Bgwhite, didnt realize it was no longer needed...another question: is there a special procedure re changing a category name that is incorrect? can I just change it, since cat. talk pages arent looked at? under the category endocrine disruptors, there are 2 subcategories of reproductive toxicants, male and female, however they are erroneously named toxins. so I would like to correct these from to and to . I think I will then have to go to all connected pages and repair the links, correct? Thanks.--Wuerzele (talk) 02:19, 26 March 2014 (UTC) never mind I found the answer, but dont know how to strike through the above--Wuerzele (talk) 02:44, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
Wuerzele, as with articles, anybody can change the categories. It looks like you already found WP:CMOVE. Looking at the category history, it looks like the person who added the categories is still semi-active. It's probably a good idea to leave a message on their talk page, including your reasoning. Bgwhite (talk) 06:07, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
@Leyo:, "...it seems"? "forgotten"? what's your evidence? no, all cat's were tagged. and why are you here on friendly bgwhite's talk page with that, may i ask? --Wuerzele (talk) 08:57, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
Wuerzele, I also see where it is not listed on the WP:CFDS. Once it is listed there, people who specialize in categories can chime in. This is part of the process. You have to goto the page and manually add it. It's not added when the category is tagged.
Before putting a discussion on your talk page, Leyo took a look at your contribution and saw this discussion on the categories. I do the same thing. Sometimes it's best not to have two separate conversations going on at the same time. I'll ping CMBJ so they are aware of this discussion. They are the one who created the category.
There is currently no distinction made between toxins and toxicants of any variety in our category structure, though I would welcome that sort of improvement in precision. As for these two specific categories, there will still be a need for them to exist because of actual reproductive toxins (e.g., Aflatoxin B1), but I make no objection to moving the toxicants to new categories. Best, —C M B J07:37, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Bgwhite, and TW i put all relevant cat's on WP:CFDS. CMBJ (Caspar Melchior Balthasar and Jesus?), I know "There is currently no distinction made between toxins and toxicants of any variety in our category structure" which is why I tagged them. I agree "there will still be a need for them to exist because of actual reproductive toxins". But aflatoxin will be one of the few examples, outnumbered by toxicants by a factor of 10 in each category. --Wuerzele (talk) 08:30, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please inform other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Recent software changes
The latest version of MediaWiki (1.23wmf19) was added to test wikis and MediaWiki.org on March 20. It will be added to non-Misplaced Pages wikis on March 25, and all Misplaced Pages wikis on March 27 (calendar).
VisualEditor news
You can now double-click or press the ↲ Enter key on an image or template to change its settings.
Pages that don't exist will now show as red links in the edit mode.
You will no longer be able to try to use VisualEditor on pages translated using the Translate extension, and you will see a warning if you try to edit pages marked for translation.
You will now see a full warning, including the most recent log entry, when you try to edit protected pages with VisualEditor.
Future software changes
Typography Refresh will be enabled for test wiki and MediaWiki.org users who use the Vector skin on March 27. For users on non-Misplaced Pages wikis, it will be enabled on April 1, and for Misplaced Pages users on April 3. If you don't use Vector as your skin, you will not be affected.
You will be able to use the Hovercards tool as a beta feature on all wikis from March 26.
You will soon be able to include the Whatlinkshere special page in other pages.
What was your motive? Was the distribution of images or the size itself? Initially I thought it was the size that you didn't tolerate because you referred to readers with poor eyesight. But after you mentioned that the Ukrainians page also used the method you were proposing, it seemed that it was the distribution used that you were changing. If indeed it was the latter, then I'm sorry for coming at you hotheaded. Khazar (talk) 21:36, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
Khazar, the reason I came to the article was to change the kludge to the template and not the size of the images. The kludge is really ugly to deal with, but it was the only way to add multiple photos. I copied the template from another article that had three photos in a row, which is why the size and layout of the photos were done that way.
I personally think the photos you had were too small. I'd rather be able to see the images clearly rather than have more quantity of photos. However, you don't have to do that. I'm not going to revert or question whatever layout you think is best. This is why I kept saying add more photos. But, I'd really like to see one big photo of Kournikova :) Bgwhite (talk) 21:58, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback. The images will probably be enlarged eventually once I get around to it. I'm thinking the best size would be 75x85 or somewhere along those lines. If that where to happen, then the rows will be changed to three and a person will be removed. You could do that if you want, I won't stop you. But if you do, be sure to drop a male from the collage because a gender gap is best avoidable. Khazar (talk) 22:03, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
Redone the edits to Geocaching without the mistakes
Hey there,
I redid the edits to Geocaching that you reverted. I hadn't noticed in my first edit that I had accidentally mispasted the URL I was editing into places it shouldn't be! Sorry, that was my fault.
I would request, though, that if you need to do that again, that you'd let me know about it! I understand that my edits probably looked like spam at first, but if you had looked at the edits (and my edit summaries, which I made sure to populate - unlike your reversion), you'd have seen that it wasn't intended to be spam at all. (Plus, it wouldn't make sense to spam *that* URL.)
TheSophera, thank you for letting me know. One of the Googlegroup links broke a heading, which brought me to the article. Redundant refs, one of which broke a heading, made me think of vandalism. Don't worry, you'll make more mistakes. I make them daily. Bgwhite (talk) 05:59, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
Mjroots I saw that and I swear I clicked that one off. My mind is playing tricks on me. I didn't know about the spelling, but I figured a ships name could be anything, no matter the spelling. Bgwhite (talk) 21:46, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
The -ise/-ize Br/Am thing is true of verbs (analyze, minimize, etc.), but if "surprize" actually exists in Br, then it's probably by assimilation to these. Whatever the case, a cursory look says "surprize" (noun or verb) is an older Am. spelling. The Brits tend to Frenchify more, while the Am., like most colonial language, is often more conservative in morphology and sticks closer to the Greek origin -- speaking of the verbal ending here. MukiDog
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that some edits performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. They are as follows:
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that some edits performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. They are as follows:
Hi, I've just made this edit, and only afterward did I check the page history and find that it was all added in this edit of yours. Although it was two and a half years ago, do you recall where you got the information? --Redrose64 (talk) 21:28, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
For changing the citation style as I have been trying to figure it out and now that I have an example of what it should be I will add it to my notes: .
+ Chad Noel had a scene with Corrigan in "Every Poolboy’s Dream", and he performed in the industry under several other names, sometimes bareback: Donny Price, Kyle Young, and Craven Cox. He died in March 2010 from an illness related to HIV complications. He was 25 and a native of Laramie, Wyoming.
By the way, could you run a search on "assistance" and change the spelling to "assistance" for the appropriate redirect page? Only one should come up. Thank you.76.170.88.72 (talk) 23:26, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
That should have been a search on ASSSITANCE with 3 "s" 's I've already coprrected the articles with 3 "s" 's since they were in the text but that last one is a redirect page and there is not a way to get to the text that I know about,76.170.88.72 (talk) 06:07, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
Jim Cartar, ah joy, vandalism. Generally, page protection isn't added for one day's vandalism spurt. Majority of people quit after a day or two, you just have to wait them out. It's the persistent ones or the ones that hop to different IPs that are the "fun" ones. I've put the page on the watchlist. I'll block them if they come back. Bgwhite (talk) 04:29, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
Jim Cartar, the So Fresh article is unfortunately a normal one. There's constant vandalism, but nothing "too bad". I don't do any vandalism patrols. If I did, I'd get very angry and depressed. On my normal routine, I do reverts on 30 or so pages a day. It is one of the joys of working here. I don't know what my block or page protection rate is, but about 20% are requests. Bgwhite (talk) 04:39, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
I understand.. actually I'm becoming frustrated while dealing with this. Anyway, thank you for your help. Jim Carter11:45, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please inform other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Recent software changes
The latest version of MediaWiki (1.23wmf20) was added to test wikis and MediaWiki.org on March 27. It will be added to non-Misplaced Pages wikis on April 1, and all Misplaced Pages wikis on April 3 (calendar).
Typography Refresh was added to test wikis and MediaWiki.org on March 27. You'll only see it if you use the Vector skin. For users on non-Misplaced Pages wikis, it will be enabled on April 1, and for Misplaced Pages users on April 3.
CirrusSearch, the new search tool, was enabled as a beta feature on over 30 new wikis on March 27.
VisualEditor news
Blocked users now see the same messages in VisualEditor as in the wikitext editor.
The search box for re-using a reference in VisualEditor is now cleared after each use.
New links on sub-pages no longer point to the wrong location in VisualEditor.
VisualEditor's media dialog no longer breaks when opening some types of images.
Future software changes
You will not be able to use the Wikitech wiki for a short period around 16:00 UTC on April 1 due to a server change.
CirrusSearch will become the main search engine for all non-Misplaced Pages wikis except Commons, Meta and Incubator on April 2.
You will soon be able to use a new special page listing duplicate files.
Deleting a version of a file or a version of its description page will soon be shown differently in the logs.
JRSpriggs, headings are already bolded. They do not need to be bolded twice. If you look at your version and the bot's version, visually they are the same. This might change come Wednesday as the typography of Misplaced Pages is getting a "refresh". See post above towards the top under "Typography Refresh" Bgwhite (talk) 18:54, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) It's one of those things that varies from browser to browser. In Misplaced Pages, level 1 and level 2 headings are normal weight (it's the large size - 188% and 150% respectively) that makes them seem bold. Since they aren't explicitly bolded to begin with, it's possible to boldface a level 2 heading and have it show as heavier type in almost any browser.
Headings of levels 3 to 6 inclusive are bolded as part of the Misplaced Pages skin styling, and this is where the browser variation comes in. If these headings include bold text, some browsers will say "it's already bolded - I'll ignore that instruction", whilst others will say "I'll make it extra-bold" (the CSS spec allows for 1000 levels of boldness although it describes no more than nine, and warns that some browsers provide fewer).
Back to the point: MOS:BOLD says "Bolded headings, though technically possible, are not appropriate." which isn't an explicit prohibition; and MOS:HEADINGS doesn't mention boldface at all. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:52, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
To Bgwhite: I do see a difference in the two titles in question, although it is less noticeable than in ordinary text. I use Firefox and the Monobook skin. JRSpriggs (talk) 06:33, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
JRSpriggs, don't use Monobook as a reference for what other people will see. Readers use Vector. When I look at what readers will see, I don't have the browser logged into Misplaced Pages. It is not noticeable in Chrome, Opera or Safari. It is a very small difference in Firefox. I've got two versions of IE. One is noticeable (more than Firefox) and one isn't noticeable. No math articles use bold in headlines. As bold headlines "are not appropriate" and no other math article use bold headlines, I see no reason to bold here, especially when the difference isn't all that noticeable. Bgwhite (talk) 06:54, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
JRSpriggs, Redrose64 & Magioladitis. With the new typography in place, I took a look at the bold headings again. I can't see a difference between bold and not bold in any browser. However, the bold does show up in the ToC in all browsers. I can't remember if it showed up before or not. They were going to update the look of the ToC with the latest update but pulled back at the last moment (If I remember correctly). Maybe it's time to think about changing MOS to allow bold in headings if it now shows up in the ToC? Links... bold & no bold.
I also noticed the text looking much better in Firefox and IE. Looks like crap in Chrome. I haven't checked my settings yet. Bgwhite (talk) 07:46, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
IIRC bold has showed up in the TOC for a long time. I put together a short test page at User:Redrose64/Sandbox5. On that, I see no visual difference between the first and second subheadings in Chrome, Firefox, IE8, Opera, Safari, but using the "inspect element" feature of Firefox reveals that in the second subheading, the letters E and B have a font-weight of 900 and the rest of that subheading has a font-weight of 700 (as does the whole of the first and third subheadings).
Going through my watchlist (and WP:VPT accounts for most of it), I have come across this post. This gives me the impression that there are at least two ways of making boldface text: one is to use a normal-weight font (the Arimo 400 mentioned there) and apply what that post refers to as "faux-bold"; another is to use two fonts - one normal-weight and one that is already boldface (the Arimo 700 mentioned there). If "faux-bold" is applied to Arimo 700, it might be emboldened still further. I would say that the possibility of emboldening parts of a subheading depends not just on browser, but also upon the font families that are installed. Since we cannot control browser, and cannot completely control the font families (just because a particular setup has Arial doesn't necessarily mean that it also has Arial Bold), we cannot assume that it is possible to embolden parts of a subheading - but we cannot assume that it's impossible either. We must aim for maximum compatibility - Inhomogeneous electromagnetic wave equation#E and B fields does this by having the very first sentence as "Maxwell's equations can directly give inhomogeneous wave equations for the electric field E and magnetic field B." so that the terms referred to in the subheading adopt the correct font weight early on in the paragraph. If this had not been done, some redundancy could have been introduced, for example by introducing the paragraph with "The E and B fields, which represent the electric and magnetic fields respectively, ..." --Redrose64 (talk) 09:21, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
ISBN
Don't worry, that was the "Marine" part of me reacting. I also have a good sense of humor side in me. I know the "West Side Story" song that you are referring to. Rita Moreno sang "Puerto Rico, my heart devotion, let it sink back in the ocean". I found it interesting that the songwriters made the Puerto Rican girls sing against Puerto Rico, while the boys sang for Puerto Rico. Anyway, it is all water under the bridge. Tony the Marine (talk) 18:57, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
Checkwiki does find a false positive error. Whitelist is for pages that have false positives, for whatever reason. If I remember right, which is doubtful, It is related to the <<br>>. 22:37, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
It seems a good reason, WPCleaner wouldn't find it as an error. One way to modify it so that it's not detected anymore is to use <<br />>. --NicoV04:48, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
Again visual problems
I'm getting those visual problems again, this time when I logged in, I got large fonts on every page. The fonts are very strange and enough large. --Captain Assassin!01:56, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for your fixes in the article! I am in the process of adding more ISBN citations. Is there something that I need to do to avoid further errors with them? :-)
2602:306:BDA0:97A0:466D:57FF:FE90:AC45. The big thing is the references. You don't have to write out the same references every time. Using the <ref name= > notation will save time and make the references section less cluttered. For the ISBNs, it's just the ISBN and the number. No commas, colons or labeling them ISBN-10 or ISBN-13. With wikimagic, it becomes ISBN 0123456789, where you can click on the number to go search for the book. Bgwhite (talk) 05:12, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks! Where can I learn about how to do the "ref name=" notation? Also, what's "Wikimagic"?
Hi Bgwhite. I'm sure that you agreed to let Lesser Cartographies be the mediator for conflicts on the Kitt page because he has experience and many Wikipedians speak highly of him, but he has made too many mistakes dealing with Duff and me, to the point where I think I have proven sufficiently here that he is unfit to continue being the mediator for problems on the Harp Twins article. I certainly do not trust him. When I blew things out of proportion, as you said, and showed primitive behavior, it was precisely to expose his flaws and build a case against him. The elimination of the shop links isn't so bad if no clear mistakes on his part can be pointed out, but for whatever reason he has disqualified himself, in my opinion, because there ARE too many mistakes. I hope Lesser will agree to let someone else be the referee because we all know that Duff will be back sooner or later, and I really don't want Lesser to be the one in charge of negotiations. Look, you are an administrator, yet you never act like you are superior to me, and it's one of the reasons why I respect you, whereas Lesser is very insolent, which causes serious problems. Please read what I wrote when you have a moment. Thanks as always... Dontreader (talk) 07:50, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
Hello, I'm 