:::::I hate the "link spam" as much as Duff, but I'm just resigned to it on music articles. I'd love to remove all the Amazon and iTunes links. I do remove Amazon links from books if the ISBN is given. There was studies on how many links there were to Amazon and how much traffic it brought Amazon. [[User:Bgwhite|Bgwhite]] ([[User talk:Bgwhite#top|talk]]) 06:53, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
:::::I hate the "link spam" as much as Duff, but I'm just resigned to it on music articles. I'd love to remove all the Amazon and iTunes links. I do remove Amazon links from books if the ISBN is given. There was studies on how many links there were to Amazon and how much traffic it brought Amazon. [[User:Bgwhite|Bgwhite]] ([[User talk:Bgwhite#top|talk]]) 06:53, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
::::::Thanks {{U|Bgwhite}}. Well, I understand what you are saying but those shop links can be found even in Featured Articles of music. I actually have gone through the [[Wikipedia:Featured_articles#Music|list]]. If these links are okay for Featured Articles then they must be okay for the Kitt page. Really, I think Duff knows that because someone put him in his place [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bridges_(Broods_song)&action=history here], so his behavior seems to be deliberately disruptive and confrontational; I believe he should be banned. [[User:Dontreader|Dontreader]] ([[User talk:Dontreader|talk]]) 07:13, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
::::::Thanks {{U|Bgwhite}}. Well, I understand what you are saying but those shop links can be found even in Featured Articles of music. I actually have gone through the [[Wikipedia:Featured_articles#Music|list]]. If these links are okay for Featured Articles then they must be okay for the Kitt page. Really, I think Duff knows that because someone put him in his place [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bridges_(Broods_song)&action=history here], so his behavior seems to be deliberately disruptive and confrontational; I believe he should be banned. [[User:Dontreader|Dontreader]] ([[User talk:Dontreader|talk]]) 07:13, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
:::::::{{U|Bgwhite}}, I'm sure you're fed up with all of this (as I am - Duff began to mess with the Kitt article exactly a year ago, campaigning for its deletion). You have many other activities to do on Wikipedia and in your real life, so I understand that you would want a break from this issue with the Kitt article. But Lesser is making no sense to me; he showed me what was supposed to be a superior Madonna link, but when I tore it apart he brought up a book. Also, he said that he saw no harm in leaving the article as it was, and then he changed it, doing basically what Duff did, which is to remove links that support content. There are Featured Articles of music with those shop links, so a different standard cannot be applied to the Kitt article. If you don't want to ban Duff, then at least please find another administrator to handle this situation until you can take charge again. An administrator has a reputation to keep. Lesser is simply not being reasonable. Thanks in advance, and really, why is there all this drama with the blessed Kitt page? Is their a shortage of Wikipedia pages or something? Can't Duff help the encyclopedia in other ways and forget about the Kitt page? I'm interested in the page because I'm a fan of those girls, just like many contributors to pages of bands are fans. That makes sense. But it makes no sense for Duff to keep on coming back to cause trouble with the Kitt page, and Lesser has just added fuel to the fire with that new edit. One cannot simply apply a different standard to that article. What's acceptable for a Featured Article is acceptable for that article too, no matter how much we all may dislike shop links. I seem to be having a very long and bizarre nightmare. [[User:Dontreader|Dontreader]] ([[User talk:Dontreader|talk]]) 08:40, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
== C&K Kitt ==
== C&K Kitt ==
Revision as of 08:40, 7 March 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
While I understand the point of Checkwiki#97, I'm puzzled by the changes being made in support of that. First, it seems that {{TOC right}}'s, for example at Bull (disambiguation), are simply being deleted, rather than simply moving it to the end of the intro section, which would seem to be more a more reasonable, and less intrusive, change. In the case of Bull (disambiguation), that just merely puts the TOC back to the default location immediately before the first section heading. In other cases, for example AN, {{TOC right}} was removed and also inserted a __NOTOC__. Why?
No matter what I do, someone will not like it. I've already had people change a regular TOC to TOC right or TOC right to TOC. In most cases, I do remove the TOC tag. What I do for disambiguation pages have been evolving. AN was one of the first pages and Bull was one of the last pages I did. Currently, If the disambiguation page is on the semi-long side, I leave a regular TOC in. If it is a shorter disambiguation page, I add a __NOTOC__. If it is "really long", I keep it on the right side. In GUI design, one does not place something where a user does not expect it. For example, on Windows, open/save option is usually under file in the upper-right. WP:TOC says to use "... {{TOC right}} or {{TOC left}} when it is beneficial to the layout of the article, or when the default TOC gets in the way of other elements". There is no benefit to a semi-long disambiguation page when the TOC is to the right as people don't normally see it. As for the rate of change, I use AWB, which automatically loads the articles and finds the TOC for me. I've got 300,000 edits, so I work faster than a "regular" person. I do preview every article except for very small articles. Disambiguation pages load and save fast. Bgwhite (talk) 01:49, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I've noticed you changing a lot of the car articles that I watch. On many of them the __TOC__{{clear}} serves no useful purpose any more and I don't worry about it. But many of them have short intros and a long infobox. By removing __TOC__{{clear}} the infobox intrudes into the first section and pushes down the infobox or photo that was at the top of that section. This makes it hard to see which infobox or photo belongs with which section.
I think that you have interpreted rule #97 slightly wrong. WP:LEAD#Elements of the lead says "Users of screen readers expect the table of contents to follow the introductory text; they will also miss any text placed between the TOC and the first heading." It seems that you have interpreted it as not allowing any wiki markup at all between the last paragraph of the intro and the first section header. I believe it only applies to the final rendered text that is shown on the user's screen or read allowed by screen reader software and that wiki markup is still okay. The use of __TOC__{{clear}} leaves the first section header as the first thing straight after the contents table, so it shouldn't affect any screen readers and makes things much nicer for sighted readers - and much, much nicer for readers with marginal sight. Stepho talk05:49, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Stepho-wrs, I haven't a clue what you are saying without examples. More importantly, I'm wigging it. I will not change every ToC to meet everybody's whims. I have been yelled at for doing one thing and yelled for not doing the same thing. I've been yelled at for adding too much space and yelled at for adding too little. Bgwhite (talk) 05:59, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Rest assured that I am not shouting - only trying to find common ground in a calm manner. Your efforts are much appreciated.
An example of my complaint is at the Starlet article: yours, mine.
You can see in your version where the top infobox intrudes into the "40 series" section and pushes the "40 series" infobox down. I believe that my version is at least as easy for a screen reader to decode and a lot easier for a sighted (or semi-sighted) reader to read. Stepho talk08:23, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Stepho-wrs, sorry. I'm getting cranky with all the reverts and the other "fun" stuff. The anchors usually go inside the section heading, which is why I moved them down. It also removes the article from reappearing on the list without having to whitelist the article. I forgot to combine the multiple anchors into one. Your way does look better and I have no problem with people making adjustments as long as they follow the rules. Oh, I think you have one of the best signatures around. It stands out, is clean an not hard to read. Bgwhite (talk) 08:56, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much for your help fixing my attempted edits to juggernaut. You must have noticed I had trouble with Template:OED and then forgot I was proxied in when it seemed to work okay. When I figure this out, I will be meaning to get back to our coworker who posted on Template_talk:OED about part of the problem. Since your help, two syntax glitches came up. One I fixed. The other left me puzzled about the instructions at Help:CS1_errors#wikilink_in_url. Could you please be so kind as cop another quick gander at juggernaut and see if you can fix the link, ideally linking to both OED and to [[1]] (subscription required) or else whatever our best-practice solution is? Hope you have the time... tnx, - phi (talk) 09:33, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed the template OED problem. I'm not seeing the syntax glitch of Help:CS1 errors#wikilink in url. The glitch means there is a wikilink inside an external link. As the external links show up as blue the wikilink also shows up in blue, having both in the same spot makes the wikilink invisible. Ask questions anytime. That's what I'm here for. Bgwhite (talk) 21:57, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is actually! Love the SNES. Question for you, though: do you commonly edit articles pertaining to Classical Music? Just wondering how you stumbled upon the catalogue :-). ZSNES (talk) 09:29, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
ZSNES, I get reports of problems with articles. The Köchel article was on a broken bracket report. I don't listen to any music except when my wife has something playing. Bgwhite (talk) 23:33, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Using a leading space to create preformatted text is a standard Wikimedia feature. See MW:Help:Formatting. Like many wiki markup features, it is intended to be simpler to type and use than html-like tags. Preventing editors from using this feature cannot possibly be described as the bot working fine. The article was displaying fine before the bot edited and was messed up after the bot edited. That is not good. SpinningSpark09:25, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Also, <pre> maybe an html tag, but so are . 50 html tags or 2 html tags with things written as shown on screen? Indenting is for simple stuff, pre tags make complex stuff easier to read and write. Bgwhite (talk) 09:52, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have an issue with getting rid of the html character codes. I admit that I did not notice you had cleaned that up. My apologies for not reading your edit carefully enough before reverting you. None of that changes the fact that leading spaces should not be automatically removed. They are valid formatting and may well be deliberate. SpinningSpark10:19, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yalladar
Well, you are right about one thing, I am Yalladar. But, you are also wrong about another, with all due respect, I'm not the one making any mistakes, you are. And if you disagree with me, at least explain why or prove it, instead of getting me into a lot of trouble. Look, I'm not trying to do anything wrong here on Wikipedia, I'm just here creating and editing articles of Jordanian football players, coaches, and teams. I don't mean to brag, but honestly, I have the most knowledge about stuff like this or anything relating to it here on Wikipedia. I know what I'm doing. I'm just trying to help by making contributions to Wikipedia, is that so wrong?! I apologize if I really have ever violated any of this website's laws or done anything else wrong. And every time I say something like this to people like you who always get me into trouble here on this website, they never reply because they know they're wrong, and no matter how many more times you guys try to stop me from contributing to this website, I will not stop!!! We both know I'm not doing anything wrong, or at least not trying to. You guys have always been unfair with me by banning me from contributing anymore for no valid reason. So basically, you guys get me in trouble by helping you. The only ones who you should be getting in trouble are those who get into edit wars with me and those who provide inaccurate information on articles like those, and I'm not one of them. I have just as much right to contribute just like anyone else here on Wikipedia. Listen, all I'm asking is for you guys to stop reverting or deleting my edits, reporting me to Wiki authorities, and having me banned from contributing. What harm can be done?!
Is there any way like templates to add an AWB protection in article? For example in Dhoom 2, the sentence is Mr. A announces that he will steal an ancient warrior it is fine. Here Mr. A does not need be changed to Mr. An. Anyway to add any template here? Tito☸Dutta00:03, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A bot edit Punctuation goes before References has been made (and reverted by me) me a couple of times now. There is a sentence with three references. Two of them refer to keywords in the sentence, and one of them to the whole sentence. Only the last reference (the one applying to the complete sentence) should go after the punctuation mark. The article is correct (in this regard) as it stands now. YohanN7 (talk) 01:56, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
YohanN7 Um, no. That is not how it is done. Nobody else will know what you are trying to do either. If a reference applies to the entire sentence, the punctuation still goes before the reference. If the reference covers only part of the sentence, the punctuation still goes before the reference. This is done according to Wikipedia:REFPUNC. There are no exceptions listed for what you are trying to do. Bgwhite (talk) 02:17, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Then your bot still doesn't get it right since it leaves one reference in the middle of the sentence. As for the Nobody else will know what you are trying to do either, well, your'e wrong - and Wikipedia:REFPUNC is ambiguous. Placing all references after the punctuation mark would be, in the present case, misleading. As it stands now, it's perfectly clear to the reader to what the references refer. YohanN7 (talk) 02:48, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There is an example,
Flightless birds have a reduced keel[10] and smaller wing bones than flying birds of similar size.[11][12],
where there is a footnote to keyword keel immediately following it. Logically, the same applies even if the keyword happens to be the last in a sentence. Note: "The text to which the footnote applies" need not be a complete sentence, and it isn't a complete sentence in the case at hand. YohanN7 (talk) 04:48, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
YohanN7, keel example is correct. The bot did the correct thing in leaving the ref in the middle of the sentence. These are examples given in Wikipedia:REFPUNC. However, this is irrelevant as no punctuation is next to those reference. If the reference comes next to punctuation, punctuation MUST come before the reference, not after it. This clearly stated in REFPUNC. REFPUNC is not ambiguous.
"The ref tags should immediately follow the text to which the footnote applies, including any punctuation..." (emphasis mine).
Only dashes and parenthesis are the only given exemptions.
Ok, I'll give up. But, the rules are flawed because they render the text ambiguous. And, REFPUNC is ambiguous. The example should read
Flightless birds have a reduced keel and smaller wing bones than flying birds of similar size.[10][11][12]
if the rules are to be followed. Note that "The ref tags should immediately follow the text to which the footnote applies, including any punctuation..." doesn't talk about where the punctuation mark happens to be. You should have these rules rewritten (preferably changed to non-US standard) and clearly stated. I also don't agree with your screaming "MUST come before". You seem to feel that "following rules" (however bad they are) is more important than writing good articles with unambiguous footnotes. Rules exist for the purpose of making life a little smoother. When rules are bad or contradict themselves, they should be scrapped ASAP. I'm sure you wouldn't agree. YohanN7 (talk) 15:36, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Bgwhite - I am new to editing Wikipedias so I apologize if I'm not accomplishing things in the correct way. I'm writing in regards to the recent reversions on the edits I made to the page for the Texistepec Language. I have already written to Materialscientist in hopes of addressing what I did wrong so I can ensure my edits are correct in information and formatting. I am a linguistics student with a semester long project of updating a Wikipage for my chosen Indigenous American language every week on a different aspect of the language. All of my sources are from peer-reviewed articles and books authored by experts recognized in their field. I realized I failed to make a citation and tried to go back and correct it but that was also reverted. What I am having trouble understanding is why my initial edits to the page were left intact (after they were edited by you for formatting, thank you very much) but my second attempt on 15 Feb. 2014 was completely erased. My sources are peer-reviewed and cited in the edits, and I found my sources as a result of the Reference sections in the back of other books in this field. I'm not writing anything opinion based, I am not even trying to put my own spin on any of the information. I am taking information out of physical texts and copying it onto the Wiki. I know my Professor's hopes in this assignment was that we could have useful homework that would give back to the community at large, I'm finding this more difficult to accomplish than I'd expected since the info is being deleted and I have no idea why. I have been using Microsoft Front Page to code my entries because I don't know how to code. If this is not acceptable please let me know what I can do better so the information is allowed to remain on the page. I'm not trying to start any editing 'wars', I don't even know how I'd do that, but I do have to update this on a weekly basis. Please help me so I can pass the information along to the rest of my classmates, who are encountering the same problems, so we can contribute something useful to the world instead of just frustration to the tireless Wiki editors such as yourself. Thanks in advance for any assistance you can give me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.165.149.83 (talk) 18:17, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
8.165.149.83, a few things. You didn't add any references to your last big edit. There needs to be a reference for each table. The Microsoft Front Page is creating tables waaaaay differently than Wikitables. When I edited your first tables, I reduced the size of the file by 1/2. They code for the Front Page table is very complicated. Anyone trying to edit it later on will have a hard time. Wikitables also load faster. Here is your code for the first tables. Here was my revision of the tables.
If you can't make out what is happening from the above revisions, Help:Table contains more information. You can edit in a "sandbox" where no edits you make will show up on Wikipedia. So, it is a good place to play around. Your sandbox is here. If you need any help, give me yell. Bgwhite (talk) 07:46, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Bgwhite. Most of my info was from the stuff already referenced, but now I see which citations I forgot to include. Thanks for the information on the formatting. I will avoid MFP in the future and try to code it by hand using the tutorials on wiki tables. Thank you for your assistance and I will take some more time to practice my tables on the "sandbox" before I try to edit the page again. Thank you. -AzLinguist (I don't have a username so I thought I'd try that one out) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.165.149.83 (talk) 16:36, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Egyptian Revolution of 2013 until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. GreyShark (dibra) 19:34, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
don't bother talking/warning this guy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Alexanderalgrim#DEFAULTSORT_2 please see your message here), i've followed him extensively as he seems to dabble in Portuguese football, and thus be my compatriot, i've tried everything, speaking in Portuguese, speaking in English, other people have talked to him, offered help, warned him due to his continuing BLP violations... NOTHING works, he does not utter one word in reply to ANYONE, and he speaks English, not a very good one but he does.
AL, I think that was the third time I've mentioned that to him. My issue is minor, but BLP violations are a different story. I don't really follow him, but if you notice any BLP violations or other serious matters, give me a yell. That is an issue that should be corrected or some blocks will be in order to get their attention.
I currently have a user that thinks that any website is not keeping track of his country's footballers correctly. He insists he is the only one who keeps accurate statistics. Any English website is biased and doesn't present the whole story. Sigh. I'll trade you. Bgwhite (talk) 07:21, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, i guess you're far worse than i am, indeed :) And i also must clarify: maybe i should have said "his poor BLP approach", not "his BLP violations", he's by no means a vandal no sir, it's just WP:COMPETENCE could be raised in his case, but i must be extra careful with the wording lest i am wrongly accusing someone of (massive) wrongdoing.
Example: if a player plays ONE MINUTE in a minor competition (i.e. Taça da Liga) then goes months without playing anything else (and he could die/retire in the meantime for all we know), Mr.Algrim feels the subject is already worthy of a WP article, and voilà!
Also interesting is that he received a notification after i highlighted his name in my message to you, and did he feel the need to defend himself/comment here? No way! Quite a one-man show he's running there...
AL, he hasn't been on Wikipedia since the 13th. So don't read into anything that he hasn't commented here yet.
The rules do state if a person has played in a professional level or National team match, they become notable and get an article. If it is for one minute or 90 minutes, it doesn't matter. At least footballers have a very easy litmus test. Some American college football and basketball player discussions get, um, interesting. Bgwhite (talk) 00:30, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sir,
I once again thank you for the edits in Padmapur. But sir, don't you think that the images of personalities like Comrade Nagabhushana Patnaik (Who is born in Padmapur) and Sadguru Arjuna (Who is born near a village padmapur) have glorified India by their selfless deeds and as such their images should be displayed in the page Padmapur . I still admit that the problems ,if any, regarding copyright, should be considered leniently.
Hpsatapathy (talk) 04:35, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hpsatapathy, howdy again. Thank you for the kind email. Couple of things...
You had a link from Nagabhushana Patnaik to your own user space. There can't be any links to anyone's user space.
I don't think the "Extension of Buddhism" image should be in the article. It doesn't serve a purpose.
The other two images of Comrade Patnaik and Arjuna, should be in there, but they should be lower down in the article. At the spot you had placed them, any reader would not know who they are or their relation to Padmapur because there hadn't been any text about them yet. Images should be place near where the subject is being mentioned.
Hi Bgwhite. Since I agreed not to edit the Twins' page, I've decided to edit more melodic and relaxing music pages, such as Slayer. Anyway, I was just wondering if an exception can be made in the case of clear vandalism, supposing that you or GoingBatty are not around at the time. There was a recent edit by an anonymous user, and it was a good one, but at first I feared possible vandalism. So please let me know if in an indisputable case of vandalism I can directly edit the Kitt page, as the only exception to the agreement. Thank you as always for your time. Dontreader (talk) 07:14, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Dontreader, thank you for the laugh. I guess Slayer is more relaxing than your favorite band GWAR. I saw the same edit as I keep the article on my watchlist. Go ahead and revert any clear vandalism. Bgwhite (talk) 07:32, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Bgwhite, it's true that I love GWAR more than anything else in the world, but eventually I was forced to spend a ton of money travelling to Rome for multiple exorcisms, so now I'm extremely cautious and I listen to black metal instead. Thanks for keeping the Kitt article on your watchlist, and for letting me revert any obvious vandalism. I feel the need to protect them. They have such big hearts, you know. Dontreader (talk) 08:07, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Website/Storage
Do you have any website of your own with some storage to host some HTML/javascript code? We have this page. I uploaded it at my3gb, because it is free and you don't need to sign in in every few weeks to keep the account active. But the site my3gb itself, not my account, has some bad impression. The code itself is very simple. If you have some host, and it is not going to ber terminated soon, could you host the code at your site? It'll take only 10 kb. Tito☸Dutta09:25, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Tito, I no longer have any websites that I manage. I do use something called Sark. I do all my illegal activities on there. :)
I'm currently (impatiently) waiting for the next database scan of svwp. Could you plese update me when it hits? (I hope I'm sending to the right user, too many to keep track of in my watchlist...) :-P (t) Josve05a (c)17:19, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Josve05a, the last svwiki dump was on February 6, but it didn't "finish" till the 9th. Not sure why there was a three day lag. There is a dump approx. every 15 days. Here is the queue for all the dumps. Those on bottom are next up to be dumped. Do a search for "svwiki:" and you can see svwiki's place in the queue.
I noticed on svwiki's Checkwiki page that there are 190,000 articles for error #55. You should probably turn that off. AWB handles most cases of #26 and #38, so you could clear those out. I've got some regexes for #40 that will handle a majority of articles. Bgwhite (talk) 18:32, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.
Of course there are exceptions. Per WP:TOC, "Although usually a heading after the TOC is preferable, __TOC__ can be used to avoid being forced to insert a meaningless heading just to position the TOC correctly, i.e., not too low." That's a direct quote. Yes, Point #2 in "Floating the TOC" says "If floating the TOC, it should be placed at the end of the lead section of the text, before the first section heading." but Point #5 says "The default TOC is placed before the first headline, but after any introductory text (unless changed by the page's editors). If the introductory summary is long enough that a typical user has to scroll down to see the top of the TOC, you may float the TOC so it appears closer to the top of the article. However, the floating TOC should in most cases follow at least the first paragraph of article text." This is an explicit exception, and blind reversion is uncalled for. - Dravecky (talk) 09:26, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure you're acting in good faith but "no exceptions" is not what it says at WP:TOC. I just quoted chapter and verse from WP:TOC which is the actual Wikipedia consensus on this subject. An inconclusive discussion on your talk page doesn't trump the clear text that outlines the exceptions and how to implement them. - Dravecky (talk) 11:25, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
DraveckyGraham87 So how a page looks trumps if someone can actually read the page? My talk page discussion proves that point. What you fail to quote is, "Users of screen readers do not expect any text between the TOC and the first heading." Accessibility trumps on how a page looks. Bgwhite (talk) 18:48, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Your opinion may differ, and that's your right, but the fact is, per WP:TOC, there are exceptions. The discussion you point to pre-supposes that persons using screen readers will take action to skip part of the article, not that the screen readers will skip the text on their own. Perhaps you would care to start a community-wide discussion on this but a brief, inconclusive chat on your talk page does not establish consensus nor does it override WP:TOC. - Dravecky (talk) 19:07, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Dravecky, but when *every other article* follows the guidelines, why would someone using a screen reader do anything different? They won't. This has been around since 2006, 2008 and mentioned Signpost Tell me your reason for denying a screen reader user from reading part of the article? This has been in place for years. You should start a discussion on when "Users of screen readers do not expect any text between the TOC and the first heading" should be ignored. Examples being page layout and page design overriding accessibility. Bgwhite (talk) 20:01, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
“
2. If floating the TOC, it should be placed at the end of the lead section of the text, before the first section heading. Users of screen readers do not expect any text between the TOC and the first heading, and having no text above the TOC is confusing. See the last line in the information about elements of the lead section.
You're the one willfully ignoring the text of WP:TOC which already outlines exceptions. If you want it changed, start that process, but until then you're basing your editing on something that's not in the document you cite. - Dravecky (talk) 22:01, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, Tell me your reason for denying a screen reader user from reading part of the article. WP:TOC clearly states this will happen, plenty of evidence is given that this will happen. Why should a group of people be denied from reading parts of an article for the sole reason that you think it looks better? Bgwhite (talk) 23:16, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, thanks Bgwhite for all your work with this. Also, the help pages are not policies or guidelines, and therefore don't have much standing at all in cases like this. Graham8702:04, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ugh, people ignore all kinds of rules. I'm for consistency and improving accessibility. BUT that doesn't mean we need a rule for everything, and if we have a rule, that doesn't mean people will read it and adhere to it. The principle is clear as far as I'm concerned. Deviating from the principle is allowed. But you better have a reason to do so. Thus I can't comment much further on this, because there is no context here on which I can judge if there is a good reason to deviate from the principle. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 09:38, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've just been invited to comment here by a bot, but I'm not entirely sure what question is actually being asked so I'll just comment based on my reading of the thread (no links to background have been given). It seems to be in dispute whether accessibility concerns, particularly for people using screen readers, prohibits the placing of a TOC before the end of the first section of an article - something that is technically possible and not explicitly forbidden by the guidelines for tables of contents? If I've understood this correctly then the answer is that, yes, accessibility concerns are more important than pretty visual design. The reasoning behind this interpretation comes from pillars 1 and 3 of the five fundamental principles by which Wikipedia operates:
"Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia". That is its fundamental purpose is to provide encyclopaedic information. Everything we do must support that, directly or indirectly. Nice design is in keeping with this only to the extent that it enhances the ability to read or otherwise consume the content.
"Wikipedia is free content that anyone can [...] use" (my emphasis). This means that our content must be usable by as many people as possible, and knowingly excluding people who use screen readers is a violation of this core principle.
For want of a nail - visual layout issues with "template" in this article are why the TOC placement is in the article.
Please see TOC#Floating_the_TOC for the reasons that the Poem For Want of a Nail had the table of contents moved right. The way you changed the article leaves a lot of whitespace in the center of the heading, and is poor visual formatting - which is why WP:TOC specifically allows this exception. I have reverted your edit for now, please let us take this discussion to the talk page and come to consensus with other editors on this topic. Thank you! Timmccloud (talk) 15:20, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Why? There is no advantage. Draft space is not the same as user space when "control" is concerned. You don't "own" a draft, but you do "own" your sandbox. By "own", I mean people are hesitant to edit or delete anyone's user space articles. Draft space is meant to make it easier for newbies to work on articles. Bgwhite (talk) 18:48, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for editing my edits, Bgwhite, always learn from others' edits. say, do you think that needs additional citations box from 4/09 can go? I added where I could to clean up rotting links etc. true, the top of the article has very few citations, but almost all sections refer to main article full of citations. Should only admins remove these box warnings?
Didnt see a thank you link behind your name so am posting this on your talk page (BTW: why do/how can some people have this and some not?). Thanks.--Wuerzele (talk) 17:11, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wuerzele, I think the article still needs more. That is a long and complicated topic. Even though most sections do have a "main article" link, a reference for the following paragraph would still be a good idea. However, removing the needs more refs tag would be appropriate. Anyone can remove the box warnings or tags. Oy, that article could be never ending, adding DNSSEC, DNSCrypt, SQL injection, NSA.... Bgwhite (talk) 19:03, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
thanks Bgwhite. ok then. One last thing: Do you know why or how some users have this [username|thank you] link behind their name, and most of us not? Are these people admins typically, or are they self-programmed for gratification, or what?--Wuerzele (talk) 19:41, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
All confirmed users should have them, but not unregistered users. It is possible for editors to opt out if they wish, which might explain some instances of the link not appearing. You will never see the "Thank" link behind your own name because it would be silly to let people thank themselves for editing. See this policy for more info. — Bill W. (Talk) (Contrib) — 19:55, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wuerzele, don't worry. One can never remember all the stuff around here. Once you do learn something, it gets changed. After all these years, I still ask people for help and advice.
Wtwilson3, "it would be silly to let people thank themselves for editing". Huh? What narcissist wouldn't love sending thank yous to oneself. If you are like me and sooooo lonely, you send thanks to oneself to think somebody out there notices you. So, lonely. :) Bgwhite (talk) 21:55, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Tito Crap, I forgot to answer your email about meta. There is no problem with the main page. If I remove {{Main page interwiki}}, it goes away. If I add just one interwiki, it returns. So, it is somewhere in the Mediawiki preferences. Did you install meta by chance? Bgwhite (talk) 19:24, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, I did not install anything. {{Main page interwiki}} is imitating {{Main Page interwikis}} of Wikipedia. This is affecting only main page. It is not an interwiki table or template error. This is either a mediawiki/extension preference or a glitch. I have checked another wiki, they are also using interwiki, and old version, check in Special:Version, but not facing any error. Tito☸Dutta23:43, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Lugnuts, Obviously you didn't read the entire edit summary.
WP:LISTPEOPLE is MOS. A person may be included in a list of people if ALL the following requirements are met:
The person meets the Wikipedia notability requirement.
The person's membership in the list's group is established by reliable sources.
The edit warning IN THE ARTICLE: "Every entry in this list must have an article written and reliable sources to support inclusion, else it will be removed without warning."
Hello, Bgwhite. Please check your email; you've got mail! Message added 11:25, 21 February 2014 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Anonimski, thank you for letting me know. I put a three month lock on it this time. As you have edited that page off and on for a bit, tell me if the vandalism returns again after the protection expires. Bgwhite (talk) 21:13, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
TOC edits with AWB
You do realise that your edit summary is pointing to a Help page, no guideline, policy or anything someone could genuinely refer to as "how to format an article"? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:55, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The Rambling Man I linked to WP:TOC which states, "If floating the TOC, it should be placed at the end of the lead section of the text, before the first section heading. Users of screen readers do not expect any text between the TOC and the first heading".
WP:TOC also links to WP:LEAD, a MOS page and it states, " Users of screen readers expect the table of contents to follow the introductory text; they will also miss any text placed between the TOC and the first heading."
Are you sure what you're doing is actually improving articles? The second edit you made to the list of boxing champions was much better but several of those you've already made are much worse. Could you fix those ones as you did with the boxing list? The Rambling Man (talk) 22:09, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The Rambling Man, for those who are using screen readers, yes it is improving the articles as they can now read "missing" text.
Again, I'm winging it and your definition of "worse" is different from mine which is different from anyone else's definition. Am I making some pages "worse", yes. Am I making some pages "better", yes. Which of the 2,500 hundred pages I've edited so far are "much worse"? I've reused the same toc template, but put in the proper location and been told I made it worse. I've changed to toc template from opposite left/right and been told I made it worse. Whatever I do, I'm in a lose-lose situation. I'm starting to think Graham87's request was an evil ploy. Bgwhite (talk) 22:28, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have no doubt that they're making the articles more accessible and I'm a complete advocate of that. But if the second version of the boxing list you edited is still accessible, I'd urge you to consider the readers who don't use screen readers as well. Placing a massive TOC with bags of whitespace at the top of articles is hardly a step forward for 99.9% of our readers if it can be avoided whilst catering for the remainder of the audience. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:45, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Bgwhite. Please check your email; you've got mail! The subject is Somewhere-land. Message added 05:34, 23 February 2014 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
I noticed this change by BG19bot to Coordinated Universal Time. It seems to be an invisible change, in that it would not change the appearance of the article to a reader. Also, it seems to be outside the scope of the approval of the bot, which was to add a template to certain biography talk pages. Jc3s5h (talk) 13:21, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker)@Jc3s5h: The bot made three changes: (i) it exchanged the positions of {{Use dmy dates|date=February 2014}} and {{Redirect|UTC}} - this is permitted because hatnotes should always go at the very top, see WP:HNP and MOS:LEAD; (ii) it moved a reference {{sfn|Seidelmann|1992|p=7}} from before a comma to after it - this was in line with MOS:REFPUNC; (iii) it altered a link from [[List_of_UTC_time_offsets|List of UTC time offsets]] to [[List of UTC time offsets]] which does exactly the same thing, but is just over half the length. Only the third was purely cosmetic, the first two were in accordance with the Manual of Style. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:06, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I didn't know the right place to look to see all the approved tasks. Also, I didn't see the visible change; those periods are hard to see. I didn't know a guideline says hatnotes go at the top. If I get a chance, I'll see if the "Use dmy dates" template documentation is in harmony with this or not. Thanks. Jc3s5h (talk) 21:52, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
General fixes and cleanup UPPERCASE and [/small]
Hi, Evidently your error #97 project will hit many Bridge world competitions pages that I updated a few years ago, because I(we) commonly floated {TOC right} after the lead paragraph, in multi-paragraph lead sections. Probably I will revisit them all at once, maybe next month.
These notes and questions concern the "general fixes and cleanup" in one world competition page on my watchlist today (Bgwhite diffs). If you have answers or other comments, I prefer this location. Anyway I'll post summary with link(s) on the WP:WPCB project talk page.
closing all [small] lines with [/small]. About 60 cases instances evidently make this page about 480 characters larger. (We'll see this one for all championships considered important enough to name players on winning teams.)
Is the closing tag necessary or even useful?
The closing tag is misplaced just above line 97. Perhaps because the line ends with a comment?
downcasing all UPPERCASE listings. (We'll see this for all family names in listings copied from the official source.)
Just after line 180 there are some errors-- SCHALTZ => Schalts NOWOSADZKI => NowosadzkiO --which confound my expectation that this task is automatic and routine.
Entire paragraphs seem to be downcased as necessary (line 180 and thereafter) or passed over (line 292 and thereafter) in no pattern obvious to me.
Do you know whether this task alone can be called by some template after a page is updated (or created) with half-uppercase player names? (I have seen that for some automated tasks, don't recall where.)
P64, learning how to play bridge is on my bucket list. I grew up playing Canasta with my grandparents and their brothers and sisters.
I saw the message about ToC on the bridge talk page. If anyone asks, moving the ToC is being done for accessibility reasons. People who use screen readers will miss out on text. The ToC is also being moved by hand. I try to place it where it "looks good", but I will not get it "right" all the time.
small tags.
In most cases, the Mediawiki software will add the closing small tags when serving up the page. So, making the page larger is a moot point. I've seen closing small tags missing which has caused large swaths of text being small. I also come from a programming background and made my first web page back in 1994. So, I'm "weird" about opening and closing tags.
"The closing tag is misplaced just above line 97". Yes it is. I did that manually, so I screwed up.
UPPERCASE names.
This was also manually done. After a bit, I got tired of converting. I noticed some sections were lowercase and other sections were uppercase. So I started converting to lowercase for consistency sake as the page had started out using lowercase. I'm not aware of any policy on uppercase/lowercase. What sources use isn't a factor on if to uppercase/lowercase on Wikipedia. Alot of reference use all uppercase for the title, but using all upercase which is wrong for ref parameters. I'm not aware of any script or template to automagically do this.
Bgwhite, I agree that we, not only EN.wikipedia but WPCB in bridge competitions tables, should generally avoid uppercase surnames. While the opening [small] tag is a style established by other editors last decade, the uppercase surnames were mainly or wholly introduced when I updated all the major competitions articles (and created a few) in 2011. Some were 2-3 years past due. I created the lists of team members by copy and paste from the official database displays. After downcasing those rosters on a few pages, I realized how many there must be and reverted to minimal editing. In the future I'll add closing [/small] tags, since you say it will eventually be done automatically if not manually.
So I quit downcasing at some point and spent the conversion time on diacritic and other special characters where appropriate, as for Polish bridge players. And on wikilinks for the few.
Beside the daunting task, another reason to quit downcasing was understanding that the UPPERCASE family names preserve information regarding Chinese names and some others which we might otherwise lose. Further, I didn't know whether we should invert those names (family name first) as we downcase. The latest roster that you converted is one example (see line 456).
I met a Chinese American bridge player here and took one step to recruit him or her for WPCB. But I didn't take a step, altho s/he lives only a couple of miles away. User talk:P64#Name of Chinese bridge players.
It occurs to me now that if/when we downcase all the surnames, we should simply place a comment at the end of the China and other rosters, stating that the names are family name first, or not. --P64 (talk) 17:23, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Assassin. You need to add your new articles to disambiguous pages. For example, Labor of Love should be added to Labor of Love
I'm not going to move Mr. X yet. Only one ref says filming has begun and they got that from an actor's tweet. The other two articles come from reliable sources, but they are too gossipy for me. Find something better that says filming has begun. Bgwhite (talk) 06:04, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Assassin, as I said above, it is a reliable source. But, it doesn't say filming has begun. Only one of the refs mention filming and their source was a tweet. I'm hoping there is something better that says filming has begun. Bgwhite (talk) 17:48, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
But all sources are saying that the filming/principal photography has begun, please check 1, 2, 3 and 4. All these sources confirmed the commencement of filming. Yes it was tweeted first by director Mahesh Bhatt but later it was confirmed by by all news. "An image from the set" means the filming has begun or underway, but in this source it says "Today", which is February 16, 2014. --Captain Assassin!«T ♦ C ♦ G»18:03, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
They all use the same tweet as their source. They haven't done any fact checking. I'm trying to get a more reliable reference than "according to actor's tweet". Without a better reference, the article could be challenged as "no reliable reference says filming has begun". Bgwhite (talk) 18:54, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
First it's not actor's tweet, it's director tweet. Secondly, the image was taken from the filming set. Thirdly it's not required for a reference to say "filming has begun" when an image from the set has been released. Please find a reliable source at google if you say so, I'm trying to find it too. --Captain Assassin!«T ♦ C ♦ G»19:05, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Assassin, how about working this into the article. It does say filming has begun and adds something extra for the article. There is a bit of irony in the story. I'm presuming Hashmi took his kid to Canada because it had better care. Americans are going to India for medical care because it is cheaper. Bgwhite (talk) 19:20, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, looks good. Take a look at sandbox now, updated it, added some details. By the way, Hashmi is a rich man/actor, they can usually afford to get medical care in foreign :). --Captain Assassin!«T ♦ C ♦ G»19:34, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Kkj11210 Wow. That goes beyond just a bot error. I'd say the bot barfed all over the page. Magioladitis, what happened? The edit was the last edit made by the bot last night. I just re-ran the bot on the article again and it worked ok. The edit summary is also different from what was being used at the time. Did AWB just barf when I clicked stop at the wrong point? Bgwhite (talk) 17:56, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I'm just trying to understand Persondata (and you seem to be an expert) and get this correct. Please revert [4] if I'm right.
You: "Halldór Laxness is not a patronymic name. It is a pen name and are treated as regular names. Nowhere does it say to treat non-patronymic as patrony". I would understand if Wikipedia:Persondata would always use lastname first (but would be redundant to DEFAULTSORT?). WP:SUR: "It is also hard to alphabetize all the biographical articles automatically, since the titles typically begin with the person's first name (although we have DEFAULTSORT for that)." Since we already have DEFAULTSORT we can have "Gunnarsson, Gunnar" there, but "Gunnar Gunnarsson" in persondata. And that is ok/required it seems (and for categories). Icelanders always order by first name first (and then lastname, then middle), regardless if lastname is familyname or patronymic (or matronymic). See also Einar Hjörleifsson Kvaran for a complicated (incorrect?) case.
Just to be sure if Laxness is a family name (not patronymic) would it make any difference? Just getting "pen-name" out of the way, that was true I guess but is also a family-name now (he adopted it and 7-8 people, all relatives I guess have it in Iceland, now adopting your own family name (not pen name is illegal). comp.arch (talk) 14:10, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Do not add material to a MOS page without consensus. Do not add material to a MOS page to win a discussion. In the case of sorting, do not add material without a source.
I'm not understanding the point you are trying to give in your 2nd paragraph. You use quotes without giving your source. Halldór Laxness is not a patronymic name. It is to be treated as a normal name with a given and family name, whether he comes from Iceland or not, it does not matter. Not all people in Iceland have patronymic names. As currently stands, both persondata and DEFAULTSORT are correct for Halldór Laxness. I'm not sure where your quote on categories comes from, so I can't respond. But, Icelandic category exception only covers when the name is patronymic. Bgwhite (talk) 19:14, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not "trying to win an argument", trying to understand the purpose/difference of Persondata (vs. DEFAULTSORT). It seems treating patronymic Icelandic names differently from other Icelandic names was arbitrary. Regarding [6], as my comment to MOS addition said, the source is the ref already in the article. I'm I misunderstanding? comp.arch (talk) 20:34, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
First quote is from you, second is as I thought I indicated from WP:SURWikipedia:Persondata. Please reread, I changed slightly, and then again (rearranged). Maybe its clearer now (and not important-point(?) in paragraph three now). Look at the ref regarding your latest revert. I will not revert you if we are not on the same page. You are welcome to do that if you seem my point. comp.arch (talk) 20:47, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, treating Icelandic names is being done arbitrarily different than other names when it comes sort value. However it is not being done differently when it comes patronymic vs non-patronymic in persondata. You need to separate persondata from sort value as they are two different things. Using WP:SUR has no bearing when it comes to persondata.
Persondata: Patronymic vs non-patronymic is currently how it is done for ALL languages. Patronymic Icelandic names are being treated the same as all other patronymic names. Laxness is a non-patronymic name and it follows non-patronymic rules in persondata, <family-name>, <given-name>. Majority of Scandinavian names were patronymic, but not now. Older Scandinavian patronymic names, current Icelandic, Malaysian, Burmese and Ethiopian names do not have a family name. They follow the same pattern in Persondata as current Icelandic patronymic names do now. Present-day Scandinavian names follow the same standard as all other non-patronymic names.
Sort value: Icelandic patronymic names do follow a different rule than any other patronymic type name system. This might be where you are getting confused. In the Icelandic section of WP:SUR, there is [9] given at the end. The reference is a link to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Iceland#Sort keys for Icelandic names. WP:Iceland decided to follow different rules for DEFAULTSORT and sort value for categories. A non-patronymic Icelandic name follows the same general sort rules as all other non-patronymic names. Patronymic Icelandic names follow rules set forth at WP:Iceland and all other patronymic names follow the same general sort rules.
You seem to use this username personally and as a bot. Do you have any stake in this because of some bot-issue or just in general keeping things "correct"?
For persondata: I see no reason to treat patronymic names differently in (except maybe for bots). I think country of origin (at least for Icelandic) should matter and all names from Iceland should be treated the same and would like to see that changed if that is intentionally not the policy. Really it/we should discuss this in the relevant Talk page. I just feel that I'm missing something. Not sure why there is a different treatment in the first place for patronymic, I might be ok with no difference.
Still a little confused about sort (not persondata).. "treating Icelandic names is being done arbitrarily different than other names when it comes sort value", do you mean DEFAULTSORT, as I thought there was not different treatment for any Icelandic name. comp.arch (talk) 10:26, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Be careful, you are getting close to personal attacks. Bot owners often name their bot a name that is similar to their username. It helps identify a person to the bot more easily. Addshore has Addbot. Balifresco has Frescobot
For persondata, that may be your opinion, but why would we treat Icelandic names differently form Burmese or old Scandinavian. There is one rule now for ALL names. It certainly makes it easer.
When you say you demand this and demand that, but don't understand the underlying basics, it makes it hard to communicate. DEFAULTSORT sets the default sort value for categories. Categories can also be set a sort value. When I say "sort value", I mean both. Bgwhite (talk) 18:23, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry for not speak more clearly. Did not mean for any personal attack. I'm sorry if you feel that way. I will stay off your page if you want. Maybe you are not assuming good faith on my part? comp.arch (talk) 12:22, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Lae PNG
thanks for your help with formatting.
Just for your information I am currently working on the Lae wikipage and including all the suburbs (listed in section called suburbs)
It is my plan to complete all suburbs then to reformat the Lae main page and submit this page for peer review.
I would appreciate any assistance in formatting prose or facts and even contributions within any of these suburbs.
Hello. I believe you are mistaken in the changes you have been making, with the Edit summary "TOC must come before first headline per WP:TOC". Can you elucidate here? Thanks a bunch. GeorgeLouis (talk) 06:59, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
GeorgeLouis, it is for accessibility reasons. The changes were done to accommodate those who use screen readers. Screen reader users only expect the TOC to come before the first section header. Also, any text between the TOC and section header will not be read by screen reader users. {{TOC right}} and {{TOC left}} can be used, but it has to be placed just before the first section heading. Bgwhite (talk) 07:04, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
From WP:TOC, "If floating the TOC, it should be placed at the end of the lead section of the text, before the first section heading. Users of screen readers do not expect any text between the TOC and the first heading, and having no text above the TOC is confusing. See the last line in the information about elements of the lead section."
From WP:LEAD, "The table of contents (TOC) automatically appears on pages with more than three headings. Avoid floating the table of contents if possible, as it breaks the standard look of pages. If you must use a floated TOC, put it below the lead section in the wiki markup for consistency. Users of screen readers expect the table of contents to follow the introductory text; they will also miss any text placed between the TOC and the first heading." Bgwhite (talk) 07:22, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Duplicated tags AWB
I feel it more an AWB issue, than a user's one. This edit — I had already added {{ref improve}}. I have seen sometimes users add only 1 ref and remove {{Unreferenced}} template. That's why I prefer {{ref improve}}. Now as ref improve was added, unreferenced was not needed. Can you add this rule? --Tito☸Dutta14:40, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Redrose for catching it. I wish I could say it was a simple copy/paste error in which I added what I copied from the previous article. Instead it was something shiny and new... as the dog in Up! says, "Squirrel". There was a </br/> tag that I hadn't seen before and Checkwiki doesn't catch.
Reference Errors on 27 February
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:
Sda030, thank you for the barnstar and you are welcome, I think. I hope it wasn't lesson that my wife "teaches" me... "Dear, I'm going to teach you lesson. Bad #($*)@ dog." Rather as a teacher teaching a lesson. Bgwhite (talk) 00:43, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
scan
since you seem to be good at generating lists :) how about a search for either moz-column-count or column-count? possibly restricted to inside div tags if there are too many false positives. these should always be swapped for {{colbegin}}/{{colend}} or {{columns-list}} or {{refbegin}}/{{refend}} or {{reflist}}. of course, the "always" may be a strong statement, but I have never seen a case to the contrary. Frietjes (talk) 23:16, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
sure, anything that could be used to generate multi-columns in a browser. the most common ones that I have seen are the two that I mentioned. Frietjes (talk) 23:46, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Frietjes, the list for moz-column-count is at User:Bgwhite/Sandbox1. After the depression recedes and after the 10 years it takes to do the list, I'll make more lists for you. On the bright side, the few articles I looked at also contained moz-column-count or webkit-column-countBgwhite (talk) 00:33, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there Bgwhite. I was wondering why you reverted my changes to the NA Fianna GAA club page? I am new to Wikipedia editing so please forgive me if I breached any protocols. I am a member of Na Fianna GAA club and wanted to correct some information and add new information. Thanks in advance. Dubsphan (talk) 11:17, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Dubsphan, I arrived at Na Fianna GAA because an edit left your signature in the middle of the article. Nine time out of 10, that means someone is at the page to vandalize it. With the jersey changing colours, a nickname dropped, a stadium changed and then dropping mention of three consecutive titles, it all looked too suspicious, so I did a revert. Bgwhite (talk) 23:16, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Bgwhite, I suppose that might seem suspicious. However, the colours on the page were from 1 season when there was a change for that season only. The edits I made were to reflect the official club colours as stated in our constitution. I have been a member of the club all my life and have never heard us referred to by the nickname the Terriers. The stadium named Silver Park belongs to a different club, Kilmacud Crokes. I deleted that and added a recently acquired facility in Collinstown Lane. The three consecutive titles is incorrect. We did win the Feile Peil na nOg Division One All-Ireland title in 2008. We were the first of three different clubs from Dublin to win the All-Ireland title in consecutive years but have only one the title once ourselves. The other edits were to make the status of notable players more current, add new players with achievements and remove one player that I believe to be spurious edit. Is it ok if I undo your revert? Also if you have any advice regarding my editing I would greatly appreciate it.Dubsphan (talk) 12:27, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Dubsphan, leaving an edit summary would be the most useful thing to do. It will help people understand why you made the changes and not leave them assuming or guessing. Adding references would be extremely helpful too. It is ok to revert me, provided you remove the signature. Bgwhite (talk) 22:32, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I am hoping you can suggest a course of action. I have served as an editor on the Eric Leys article. There has been repeated vandalism on this article in the last 30-45 days, and it has been proposed for deletion twice -- once by a user, Mpen320 on 10 Feb 2014, after which I updated and improved the article, and more recently by an IP address user - 128.223.223.227 on 27 February 2014. This IP address, 128.223.223.227, is very similar (and probably the same user because it is on the same network as some prior vandalism within the same time period.
I worked on a number of different articles intermittently over several years, but am not an expert in how to handle this type of situation. Since you recently did a small edit on this page and appear to be a very experienced, knowledgeable user, I am hoping you can help. Thank you! Jeva178 (talk) 15:47, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Jeva178, putting up a Prod (proposed for deletion) tag isn't vandalism. However, it can only be Proded once, so any other Prod is not valid and should be removed. The IP edits are vandalism, which you correctly reverted. The frequency of the vandalism isn't high enough to warrant any special protection. Pages that get protected usually get vandalized daily. So, at the moment, keep an eye on the article and doing reverts is the only thing to do. Bgwhite (talk) 23:30, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Assassin, you should mention why they took a break in filming. The Variety ref says filming will commence, not that it has. Could you get a ref that does say filming has started. Bgwhite (talk) 07:00, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Assassin, a film that took a break from filming for over a year does need a reference that shooting has restarted. The ones you just added were about the first shoot, not the second. Will need a ref from December 2013 or after. Bgwhite (talk) 22:45, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Check out this, and this, these are refs of re-starting, confirm the published dates. In the THR's ref where a new actor joined, he was not first added in the cast at first shoot but added in the re-shoot, THR also written in the news that film is shooting. And in the 2nd ref, where Wood spotted in Malibu, they didn't shoot there in first time, they are shooting there after re-start, told in the November 2013 ref that they will shoot there. --Captain Assassin!«T ♦ C ♦ G»03:46, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The two refs come from January 2013, so they are of no help. The Variety ref says they will shoot, not they actually have begun shooting. I'm unable to find anything that they have started shooting. It's very weird. There is no news at all. Bgwhite (talk) 05:38, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Crisco 1492, it was me and not AWB. I arrived at the page because template programming variables and a broken bracket was detected. I hadn't seen that type of programming before. Not sure why it is there as it looks identical to the way it is done normally in an infobox. Bgwhite (talk) 08:52, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It has to do with the FAC nomination. One of the reviewers took issue with the size, so Nikki set up a workaround. However, if it's breaking formatting I guess we'll have to stick with the standard parameters. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:00, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Reply
Ok, first off, I was at technical moves anyway and noticed it. The article in questio has only four sources and little info to warrant article creation. Secondly, without going and confronting him in a standoffish manner, I simply stated that I felt he was falling back into his old ways. It's a legitimate concern as he was blocked for this. I feel he's using the guise of the sandbox to create an article, then have a redirect deleted so he gets creation credit. I won't prove further, but that's how I feel. Rusted AutoParts12:50, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Rusted AutoParts, my main concern is keeping you both on Wikipedia. There is bad blood between you both and I don't want to see it escalate again. To make matters worse, both of you have been blocked and I'm trying to keep both of you clear of your landmines. If you look on this talk page, you will see Assassin is asking me to move articles out of his sandbox and into article space. You will also see me questioning some of the moves. Has Assassin be perfect? No. He has messed up, but he is trying. Bgwhite (talk) 21:46, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I understand, I really do. I don't aim to be antagonistic, but taking his history into account, I just can't help but feel the way I do. The way he's operating seems like a more acceptable way of taking article credit. It's just me vocalizing, im not starting ANI's or calling him out directly, but I do feel I need to address it. Rusted AutoParts23:37, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Bgwhite I hope you can help me with this. I moved the page for Jimmy Grey to Jimmy Gray (GAA) to correct the misspelling of his surname. However, when I type "Jimmy Gray" into the search box Jimmy Gray (GAA) does not appear in the drop down list of possibilities. Is there something more I should be doing? I have read through the help page for "Moving a page" but can't see what I have done wrong. Thanks again for your help. Dubsphan (talk) 00:08, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've been an admin for about seven years, and have previously been one of the most active editors and admins on the project. I'm also an OTRS agent. I don't need to make test pages, and I definitely don't need template messages telling me about it. The page you tagged contains text contributed by a veteran via OTRS; he does not have the Wikipedia skills necessary to make an article and he doesn't get sourcing, but the information is accurate as far as I can tell so the text is there to guide anyone who wants to source it and add it to the article. Guy (Help!) 09:17, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
JzG I don't have a clue who you are. A CSD from Twinkle automatically makes a template message. A Draft article goes into WP:Draftspace or the person's sandbox. If you want the article to be available for future editors, don't leave it where it currently is, but put it on the talk page. There is no way that anyone will look for that page there. The page is so bad that it looked like a test. Also, don't delete CSD tags on article's you created. Bgwhite (talk) 09:33, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I linked it from the military history wikiproject (and that's why someone came in and formatted it). I did forget to link it from the talk page, I have now done that. The text is way too long for the talk page. As I made clear, I did not "create" this article, I brought the text here from OTRS as a service to someone who is trying to help improve the encyclopaedia. Feel free to move it around, but please stop tagging it for deletion. Your interpretation of the rules should not get in the way of a sincere attempt to improve the encyclopaedia. Guy (Help!) 09:52, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
When you started into name calling, I started not to listen what you have to say. Reverting twice with no response to my above message except only issuing insults is not the way to handle things. Let the system work its way thru and stop the insults. There is also nothing on the Draft page that says anything about being a Veteran. Stop assuming. Bgwhite (talk) 09:57, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Your self-justification is duly noted (hint: tagging this article as a test was also insulting: next time check whether the creator might be, you know, a long-term Wikipedia user, sysop and OTRS agent, rather than some noob). This is plainly not a test page, as I pointed out, so your tagging is blatantly incorrect. Your insistence on the tag is stupid and pointless, and I am done with you. I raised it on WP:ANI so another admin can remove the blatantly incorrect tag you insist I may not remove even though I have pointed out more than once that I am not the actual author of the text. We are done here. Guy (Help!) 10:05, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
JzG. Again, I don't know who you were. I could care less that you work for OTRS. The page had nothing to say it was from OTRS or anything else. Nothing on the talk page. You have assumed alot. But calling me a dick and stupid will get you nowhere. Bgwhite (talk) 10:10, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That was a valid response first time round. After I made the situation clear, it ceased being a valid response. What part of my response left you convinced that tagging it as a test page was correct? I never had you down as a process-wonk. I am disappointed. Fortunately others have stepped in and fixed my actual error, which was putting it at /Draft rather than Draft: (because I only recently found out that Draft: even exists). Guy (Help!) 10:26, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I told you about Draftspace, you ignored me. Once you ignored my message, called me dick and reverted, you lost me. What do you not get about that? That is why I left the tag on the page. You should be ashamed of yourself. Bgwhite (talk) 10:54, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Reversion of edit "hardware debugging" back to "hardware" "debugging"
Hello,
I'm a bit new to this so please forgive me if I've entered my question in the wrong place.
As I understand it you reverted an edit of mine where I changed "hardware" (keyboard, mouse, monitor etc...) "debugging" (the process of locating and repairing logic errors in computer software/hardware) to "hardware debugging" (the ability of certain computer processors to detect erroneous conditions and interrupt running software on that basis) which is the idea that the article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_80386) is actually referring to.
So I would say that the link I replaced former (two) with much more accurately reflects the meaning and wording of the article and that your reversion, therefore, is incorrect and should be reconsidered.
Alancarre. First off, you left your signature in the article and didn't leave it here. You should sign talk messages, but not sign in articles.
Thank you for your explanation, I now understand what you were trying to do. I've reverted the edit, but made a small change. Instead of [[X86 debug register|hardware debugging]], I put [[X86 debug register|register debugging]]. If you think that is wrong, then feel free to change it. Bgwhite (talk) 19:30, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Bgwhite. Again, let me preemptively apologize if I've incorrectly placed or formatted this response. I am copying (from your response above) what appears to be the correct syntax.
I understand now (hopefully), how the signing of edits is supposed to be done. From my recollections of the few minor edits I've made in the past, I thought the signature only showed up for the person doing the signing. But I wasn't sure. I remember thinking it didn't seem to look right and, well in fact I was recording a tutorial video (about the 80386) at the time I made the edit, so I have the whole thing recorded as it turns out: (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vH2gApmb_pM&t=6m51s). As I explained in the video, that was the closest match I could find as a wiki page even though it is not an exact match for the phrase. What I need to do now is add a correction in that video series so people watching it (there aren't many) don't make the same mistake I did! Alancarre (talk)
Ralph Dfouni AWB
Dear BGwhite... I am a total novice in terms of wikipedia and am trying to put a page about Ralph Dfouni, however I think your refer to AWB which is something that encouraged to delete the references. What is this exactly. The page is still under development and should evolve a bit more in the coming days. HOpe it is OK to keep the ref until they are organised a bit more. Many thanks...iucncanada (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 19:02, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
iucncanada, AWB is just a tool to clean pages. It doesn't remove references. I manually removed them.
I started looking at the refs and they were not mentioning Dfouni. The refs need to mention Dfouni won an award or was connected to the website/film.
It would be a good idea to attach a ref to the movie or award. Having them all at the end in a pile makes it hard to know what the ref was sourcing. Could you add a couple of good refs and make mention where they belong on the page. Then leave a message here and I'll format the refs so you can see how it is done. Bgwhite (talk) 19:23, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks... Just asked Ralph to get me those good ref and a text for his wiki... let us hope for the best...
Still discovering Wiki... people like you help us a lot...iucncanada (talk)
Dear BGwhite, I think I managed to update the reference...Need to work on the rest... Hope this is OK... Is there anything else I should do? Merci...
iucncanada (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 14:50, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't mind too much - honestly - I have better things to think about. But I really don't understand why you reverted my edits on Dappy. All I was doing was bringing the aricle up to date. It said he would be sentenced on Feb 15. I gave (with a reference to The Guardian) what the actual sentence was. Anyway, best wishes. And life is too interesting to worry about Dappy. Ewen B Maclachlan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ewen B Maclachlan (talk • contribs) 20:25, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ewen B Maclachlan, you removed a perfectly good reference and added <ref>The Guardian, February 15th, 2013</ref> as a reference. Your ref doesn't tell where one can find what you sourced. There are multiple Guardian newspapers. Where in the Guardian is the source found? Was this web only material? Bgwhite (talk) 20:33, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The Guardian is a national newspaper in the UK. The case - and the sentence - were reported in several other national newspapers. Sentencing took place in February of last year. So, I think you'd agree that the article - which says he is still awaiting sentence - is not exactly up-to-date. I thought I should correct this. But I leave it in your hands. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ewen B Maclachlan (talk • contribs) 23:19, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
cite web etc
hi
Have noted your comments. I was only giving Wikipedia as reference when there was no English version available. For example if for Pierre Whatnot there was no English language entry on Wikipedia then I gave a link to French Wikipedia. Will not do this in future.
Weglinde (talk) 08:10, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Bgwhite. I see that Duff has made changes to the Kitt article. I, on the other hand, have respected our agreement. Besides, those links that he took out were intended merely to support content. Besides, I have edited several articles of musicians over the past months and I have noticed that they commonly use similar "shops" for that purpose of providing sources for content, including iTunes and Amazon, among others. And I'm not just talking about rather unknown artists; I'm talking about Lady Gaga and Katy Perry, among others. Notice, however, that those big names are heavily defended by many contributors, including very experienced ones, unlike the Kitt page, so I wonder if that's why Duff doesn't do anything about them. Until I see Duff waging war against Katy Perry or Lady Gaga pages, among others, I don't see how he can justify the claim that the Kitt article is promoting sales. Anyway, it's up to you to decide what to do with Duff, who violated our agreement, and hopefully you will revert his edit. Thanks for your time and immense patience. Dontreader (talk) 10:41, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Bgwhite. First of all, I hope you saw on the Kitt talkpage that I gave GoingBatty the information he requested (sometimes that ping thing doesn't work for me). And this Katy Perry song article that I made several contributions to in October has three Amazon links, yet the article is listed as a "Music good article". The Good Article status was approved by an administrator. I honestly cannot find a good reason for Duff's continued efforts to take out the CD Baby links from the Kitt article. Regards, Dontreader (talk) 00:28, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Dontreader, Duff went to Lesser saying how evil I am and to revert the changes. I'm leaving it in Lesser's hands for now.
Not sure what you mean by "Good Article". Do you mean WP:GA. If so, the article has to go thru an intense review. Kitt articles hasn't done the review. I've gotten articles to "Good Article" status and the Kitt article is not anywhere near that. I don't think it ever could be because of the lack of material about them. Bgwhite (talk) 00:57, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You are very evil indeed, Bgwhite, but look, please, what I meant was that the Katy Perry song article is a "Good Article" (yes, we are talking about the same thing). AND, it has 3 links to Amazon. I saw the intense review, carried out by an administrator. You can find it very easily, I'm sure. Notice that promotional issues were discussed during the process, but the "shop" links were never a problem. I'm not saying that the Kitt article deserves Good Article status now or any time soon, but my point is why is someone trying to take out "shop" links from the Kitt article as if they are against the rules, when they are present in a Good Article? Duff is misguided. Until Duff and Lesser can successfully have the Amazon links removed from that Good Article (good luck with that), they have NO RIGHT to remove the CD Baby links from the Kitt article. I hope you see my point. Thanks again for your patience. Dontreader (talk) 02:06, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Dontreader, they do have a right to remove the link. Anybody on Wikipedia can remove any links.
I hate the "link spam" as much as Duff, but I'm just resigned to it on music articles. I'd love to remove all the Amazon and iTunes links. I do remove Amazon links from books if the ISBN is given. There was studies on how many links there were to Amazon and how much traffic it brought Amazon. Bgwhite (talk) 06:53, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Bgwhite. Well, I understand what you are saying but those shop links can be found even in Featured Articles of music. I actually have gone through the list. If these links are okay for Featured Articles then they must be okay for the Kitt page. Really, I think Duff knows that because someone put him in his place here, so his behavior seems to be deliberately disruptive and confrontational; I believe he should be banned. Dontreader (talk) 07:13, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Bgwhite, I'm sure you're fed up with all of this (as I am - Duff began to mess with the Kitt article exactly a year ago, campaigning for its deletion). You have many other activities to do on Wikipedia and in your real life, so I understand that you would want a break from this issue with the Kitt article. But Lesser is making no sense to me; he showed me what was supposed to be a superior Madonna link, but when I tore it apart he brought up a book. Also, he said that he saw no harm in leaving the article as it was, and then he changed it, doing basically what Duff did, which is to remove links that support content. There are Featured Articles of music with those shop links, so a different standard cannot be applied to the Kitt article. If you don't want to ban Duff, then at least please find another administrator to handle this situation until you can take charge again. An administrator has a reputation to keep. Lesser is simply not being reasonable. Thanks in advance, and really, why is there all this drama with the blessed Kitt page? Is their a shortage of Wikipedia pages or something? Can't Duff help the encyclopedia in other ways and forget about the Kitt page? I'm interested in the page because I'm a fan of those girls, just like many contributors to pages of bands are fans. That makes sense. But it makes no sense for Duff to keep on coming back to cause trouble with the Kitt page, and Lesser has just added fuel to the fire with that new edit. One cannot simply apply a different standard to that article. What's acceptable for a Featured Article is acceptable for that article too, no matter how much we all may dislike shop links. I seem to be having a very long and bizarre nightmare. Dontreader (talk) 08:40, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
C&K Kitt
Your continuing hypocrisy and pandering is noted. I never agreed not to edit that page. What I did was choose to go along with a compromise where we discussed any thoughts on changes with Lesser Cartographies and Lesser would make the changes. You are the one that violated that understanding. The plan was not for Dontreader to come to you and for you to make changes. Your continued pandering to him is not helping. duffbeerforme (talk) 23:06, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"There must be no content between TOC and first headline"
"There must be no content between TOC and first headline per WP:TOC and WP:LEAD." say your edit summaries - from where is this language taken? The words "there must be no" do not appear in either WP:TOC or WP:LEAD, and the majory of our guidelines" use more conditions language, such as "there should be no..." or "it is best if..."
BMK, per WP:LEAD, "Users of screen readers expect the table of contents to follow the introductory text; they will also miss any text placed between the TOC and the first heading." Users of screen readers will miss everything between the ToC and the first section. Tell me when there is any reason to deny a reader part of an article? From WP:5P #1 and #3 says never. Bgwhite (talk) 01:47, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The language of the guidelines is clearly not absolutist, and I think it would be better if your edit summary was not absolutist either, and made it clesr that your edit is mot enforcing a mandatory condition, but an ideal one. BMK (talk) 02:23, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
BMK, doesn't matter what I put, people will still complain. At the other end of the spectrum, I've had people say MOS is only guideline and they don't have to follow it. An admin saying there is no consensus, so he didn't have to follow it. My favourite, one arguing with Graham and doing a Jim Carrey impression from Dumb and Dumber... So you're telling me there's a chance a screen reader user will read it. Do you really think if I said ideal and not no that you wouldn't have reverted and ended up here? I'm damned if I do and damned if I don't. Bgwhite (talk) 05:30, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, although there's no reason you would necessarily believe this, the softer, more appropriate language would definitely make a difference to how I respond to the edit, yes. You are an admin, and if you come by and say "this must happen", there's the implicit threat there that you're prepared to back up that "must" with admin action. (And, yes, incidentally, MOS is a guideline and it is not mandatory. If it were mandatory, it would be a policy - that's the basic difference between the two. So if you want MOS to be mandatory, start a movement to have the whole thing declared to be policy -- but I wouldn't hold my breath wating for it to happen. If you have any other understanding of MOS, you are mistaken.) BMK (talk) 05:41, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
BMK, I'm not questioning MOS and you are misunderstanding. Person said he didn't have to follow MOS, end of story, no debate. Accessibility didn't matter. Just pointing out this is a case where saying "guideline, I don't have to follow" doesn't hold water. Thanks for your first sentence. I does make sense now. How about... No content between TOC and first headline per WP:TOC and WP:LEAD. Accessibility for users of screen readers. Bgwhite (talk) 06:06, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Notwithstanding MOS being a guideline rather than mandatory, MOS states "should" and not "must" with regard to the placement of the floating TOC and screen readers; "should" does not mean "must", so it is somewhat untrue for an administrator to state "must" in edit summaries. "If floating the TOC, it should be placed at the end of the lead section of the text, before the first section heading. Users of screen readers do not expect any text between the TOC and the first heading, and having no text above the TOC is confusing." The only reason users of screen readers would not expect any content between the TOC and the first heading is because a handful of editors want it that way and have been editing Wikipedia to that end. Screen readers read content between the TOC and the first heading or wherever in the lead unless specifically configured not to while reading Wikipedia articles. Place the URL of a Wikipedia article with the TOC in a non standard position in the location box of WebAnywhere and test it, wa.cs.washington.edu. So, all users of screen readers are not being denied reading full Wikipedia article text due to TOC placement, as asserted. The fact that an editor has been changing the location of countless TOC over an extended period of time is an indication that no screen reader user can make the assumption that the TOC is in a standard position in every Wikipedia article. There should be a concern with how Wikipedia articles appear to the overwhelming majority of users who do not use screen readers, since having an article appear to be poorly formatted at the beginning of the article due to placement of the TOC to satisfy certain editors' desire for screenreader users to be able to make an assumption with regard to TOC placement in Wikipedia, in a sense makes certain Wikipedia articles seem amateur and lessens the trust readers place in the Wikipedia brand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.61.77.223 (talk) 08:44, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Bgwhite, some unsolicited advice. You might consider laying out this position, along with your responses to arguments against it, on a User subpage and linking to it from your edit summary, since you seem to be repeating the same discussion with multiple editors. I applaud your willingness to repeat yourself, but it might be more productive to point people to a fully-developed essay that lays out the accessibility issues involved in this TOC modification.
Jonesey95, good idea. The next dump will tell me how many articles left todo. I'm guessing around 2,000 left, so alot more talk message to go. Thank you for volunteering to help me out ;) Bgwhite (talk) 06:14, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please explain, why I have been given a no edit warning ?
The user Shivani.malik had deleted the particular passage without giving any reason, which I reinstated.
Two Company Directors along with Sahara India Founder have been sent to Tihar Jail by the Supreme Court of India. [1]
This factual information should be available for the readers of Wikipedia.
Champi4mcollege User Shivani.malik will come by and revert your change. All thru February and March, people will make a change and another person will revert. I'm not saying you have or have not done anything wrong. Instead of everybody reverting, things should be discussed first. Bgwhite (talk) 09:37, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reply, it is obvious that there are users with COI with Sahara India.
I do not think such all out blanking of any information contrary to Sahara's wikipedia advertisement is any good for the purposes of an encyclopaedia, in the long run.
Best, C — Preceding unsigned comment added by Champi4mcollege (talk • contribs) 09:57, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You've got mail!
Hello, Bgwhite. Please check your email; you've got mail! Message added 15:34, 6 March 2014 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
