Latest comment: 10 years ago10 comments3 people in discussion
Can you explain why the bot is doing this, citing that it is removing a double http://. To me, it is only swapping two references, and I don't see why that needs to be done (I would even argue, that in the original situation the references were in order of time). Overall, it is almost a NULL-edit (not a substantial change). --Dirk BeetstraTC09:12, 28 January 2014 (UTC)Reply
I generated a list of articles containing the problem from the last dump. The Nebraska article did contain a problem. I reran the list to make sure to remove any articles that were already fixed. Obviously, I ran the bot on the original list and not the updated one. Bgwhite (talk) 09:27, 28 January 2014 (UTC)Reply
References are supposed to go in the order they appear in the article... numerical order. This is part of the "general fixes" portion of AWB. Removing cases of double http is also part of general fixes. This is one reason I try to remove already fixed articles. Besides my stupidity from above, it is not always feasible. Bgwhite (talk) 06:05, 29 January 2014 (UTC)Reply
Sorry to revive the point of the sorting of references, but I see that Yobot does basically the same, reported by another editors. I did not consider it further, but I think I agree there - references are supposed to be in the order that they are chosen by the editor, and references can be major over another which was earlier used. See User talk:Yobot#Please stop improper editing. I however do agree that "[42],[1] looks strange .. I am however not sure if a bot should override that, that should be a considered choice. --Dirk BeetstraTC12:37, 6 February 2014 (UTC)Reply
I've undone this - I again stress that this is practically a null-edit, and that it overrides what may very well have been an editorial choice - there is no way a bot could distinguish that and therefore, the feature should be disabled. This was brought up independently at Yobot as well, I do not believe it is consensus or convention anymore (nor that it should be). Can you please resolve the issue? Thanks. --Dirk BeetstraTC10:58, 11 February 2014 (UTC)Reply
Beetstra, Magioladitis did remove reordering of references "feature" from AWB. However, the vast majority of AWB users will not be using the fix until the next version of AWB comes out. There are a few of us, including Magioladitis and me, that do compile the latest code ourselves. It is not a trivial procedure to compile it. I have to edit some of the code to make compile on my "newer" system. As this "feature" has been around since I started using AWB (2011), waiting a little longer for everyone to get the next update is not a big deal in the long run. Bgwhite (talk) 19:02, 11 February 2014 (UTC)Reply
Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is "Pine Bush, New York".
Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! --Guy Macon (talk) 04:56, 7 February 2014 (UTC)Reply
Why did you revert my edits on Music for Millions without telling me?
Latest comment: 10 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
You reverted my edits on the Music for Millions without notice to me. Why?
Zabadu, first off sign your posts. Second, you don't tell people when someone reverts an edit as it done automatically. Third, you are involved in an edit war. You have been warned you "may be blocked if they continue to revert without getting consensus first." Fourth, you are using links that contain illegal content. You cannot link to pages that contain copyright violations. Bgwhite (talk) 21:12, 6 February 2014 (UTC)Reply
What links have illegal content? The only links I used were for Wiki pages. I have not reverted the page since my last revert. I initiated the "edit war" complaint as an editor keeps reverting with no explanation.Zabadu (talk) 21:36, 6 February 2014 (UTC
The orchestra is shown playing several classical standards (Dvorak, Tschaikovsky, Grieg, Liszt, Herbert, Handel, Debussy, Chopin)before various military audiences. The talented Iturbi variously conducts the group as well as effortlessly plays difficult piano pieces, while Durante sings comically in two solo acts ([http://www.last.fm/music/Jimmy+Durante/_/Toscanini,+Iturbi+And+Me Toscanini, Iturbi And Me] and [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0vihJmnPqFI "Umbriago"]).[[User:Zabadu|Zabadu]] ([[User talk:Zabadu|talk]]) 19:12, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
1) Saying "he talented Iturbi variously conducts the group as well as effortlessly plays difficult piano pieces" is not encyclopedic.
2) The YouTube link shows a clip from a movie. The movie is copyrighted, thus having the link to it is a copyright problem. See WP:COPYLINK.
I did not write that line. All I did was link the video. I wouldn't know Dvorak from Grieg. I added the Jimmy Durante video - my bad. I did not realize they were verbotten. The clip is NOT from the movie, however. It is from another. and lastly - I've been told so many time to sign my posts that it's a reflex now. Again, my error. It helps very much to know exactly what you see is wrong. So far, Toccata Quarta has not. This person has numerous complaints for doing this, yet I"m the one who got warned. It's bothersome. But again, thanks for the explanation.Zabadu (talk) 03:05, 7 February 2014 (UTC)Reply
Floating the TOC
Latest comment: 10 years ago8 comments3 people in discussion
Hi Bgwhite, nothing personal, but this was discussed ad nauseum recently. If you still feel the same way, let's discuss rather that war. Cheers, Hwy43 (talk) 06:54, 7 February 2014 (UTC)Reply
Hwy43 You are confused. I'm not talking about the floating aspect. It can still be there. This is an accessibility issue for the blind.
"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."
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.
"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."
We've tried forcing it to float right immediately after the first paragraph in the lead but have been unsuccessful thus far. Hwy43 (talk) 23:49, 8 February 2014 (UTC)Reply
Re: the above discussion and the message on my talk page: indeed, screen reader users such as myself will most definitely miss the text between the TOC and the first heading because it's in a completely non-standard position. I can't think of a reasonable exception to this rule. The {{Compact ToC}} further down in the article is fine because it doesn't contain a heading. Graham8702:10, 9 February 2014 (UTC)Reply
Graham87, please clarify. With the TOC floated and positioned as is, you miss the text placed between the TOC and the first heading entirely, or the text is read unexpectedly by the screen reader after the TOC and before the first heading? I want to make sure I fully understand the problem. Hwy43 (talk) 03:43, 9 February 2014 (UTC)Reply
The former. Most screen reader users will press "h" to move from the TOC to the first heading of the page, and thus miss any text between these two elements. Graham8709:17, 9 February 2014 (UTC)Reply
Graham87, what happens if screen reader users do not press "h"? Will the screen reader simply move from the TOC and finish reading the lead before arriving at the first heading? Hwy43 (talk) 19:36, 9 February 2014 (UTC)Reply
It really depends. If there have been one or a few dominant editors, it is best to include them in the GA process as they wrote the stuff. The first step is to take it to WP:Peer review. After that, then you take it to GAN. It is a really good idea for you to take an article to GA. It really helps to see what is the "right" way of doing things. I did it when starting out and it was the best training one could have around here. If you have an article in mind, let me know and I can take a look at it before going to Peer review. Also, popular culture articles such as music or films stay awhile in the Peer review and GA queues. Bgwhite (talk) 07:17, 7 February 2014 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 10 years ago7 comments2 people in discussion
Hello Bgwhite, I am a regular user of wikipedia. I have created few number of articles which were all wikipedia standard. Let me tell you why I am typing this message. In the last few days, I am observing some articles which are deeply related to India. While observing them I found that some articles have incorrect informations one of the examples are in this article Sonalika Joshi. This incorrect informations were added by some IP users. Being an Indian I have the Knowledge about Indian based articles. I want to rollback this incorrect informations but I don't have that right. So, I request you, can you please grant me the rollback permission, I would like to contribute more for Wikipedia against any vandalism based on Indian articles. Thank you for your kindness. Yours faithfully.
(The above message is written by me i.e. By a Indian, so it is possible to have grammatical errors because I am not a native English speaker. So for any further clarifications please ask me.) Rudra (talk) 19:32, 7 February 2014 (UTC)Reply
Rudra, perhaps you may need to slow down. You nominated yourself for admin with only 144 edits, you were thinking to make this article The Frog and the Nightingale. I did not know what to say, it is not close to even DYK standard. You are doing some good edits, hopefully you'll continue to do so. Rollback is almost a useless tool, Twinkle is much better (they should have a "permission for Twinkle" instead). Are you using Twinkle? Believe me, Rollback will give you no extra feature. With so less edits and reverts you may not get Rollback permission, that's a different thing, but I leave that on Bgwhite. You may get enrolled in WP:CVUA, which might help you to get the tool (but don't expect it in one-two week(s))Tito☸Dutta20:02, 7 February 2014 (UTC)Reply
Titodutta I respect your suggesitions. But frankly talking I don't know what is Twinkle. As you suggested I would like to get the tools. And Bgwhite, please give me the permissions for twinkle as Tito mentioned. Beside this I don't know were my brain was while I am nominating myself for adminship. It is my big mistake, I know that. Thankyou. Rudra (talk) 20:23, 7 February 2014 (UTC)Reply
Rudra john cena, any help on Indian based articles is extremely welcome. I have to agree with Titodutta. There are better ways for you right now. Rollback only works on the last user who edited an article. It does come in handy if one is dealing with alot of vandalism, otherwise, the "undo" feature should be good enough. At your stage in Wikipedia, it would be better to use "undo". Undo forces one to write an edit summary whereas rollback doesn't. Get some experience in, dealing with vandalism and I'll gladly grant you rollback.
okay. I will work against vandalism, but how much experience is needed? @Titodutta I am working on a new article about Indian History. Do you know about our Early nationalists existed from 1885 to 1905. They are also called moderates. I am currently working on this article in AfC. After I finish it, I will work for The Frog... Nightingale. Rudra (talk) 06:45, 8 February 2014 (UTC)Reply
I am afraid at the fact that you are wrong. It was the breakup of the congress into two troops Assertive and moderate. But I am not talking about this. The early nationalist means the formers of the Indian National Congress you may check the history section of the Congress formed by A. O. Hume. The first phase of the early nationalists are considered as moderate phase, Which was existed between the years that have been mentioned earlier. After the desend of the early nationalist the assertive (also known extremist) came to power merging with the early nationalists. But due to the conflict of the ideologies. They again separeted in September 1907 (Which you are talking about). And in 1919 the Gandhian era started till the Independence.
Please don't mind Titodutta but I have already worked in this project earlier in my college, so I have a little knowledge in this subject. But your suggestions are always very important, please continue mentoring me. Thank you. Rudra (talk) 16:02, 8 February 2014 (UTC)Reply
Apologies
Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I am really sorry my slippery fingers reverted one of your edits as "rollback vandal". I am really sorry. I made the intended edit immediately after, removing all the anonymous contributions for WP:NPOV to the last solid version. I apologize your edit was not vandalism and I pushed the wrong button without meaning any harm or to create any problems! Again, I'm very sorry. Ellin Beltz (talk) 20:01, 7 February 2014 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi, I'm grateful for the POV changes you made to the Julius Ashkin page. I made a couple of small re-adjustments. Maybe you won't disagree with them: (1) I mentioned the teaching award that Carnegie Mellon created in Ashkin's honor, putting it at the tail end of the section on his career at CMU. (2) I put the statement about his wife and two daughters at the end of the section that gives his parents' names.
Dutta, I won't be attending. I'd have to apply for a scholarship and I'd need the help of my wife. I don't walk very well and need some help. You should go. 30% of the scholarship funding goes to your neck of the woods, so you would have a better chance of getting one. Make sure to mention you Sartverse work. Bgwhite (talk) 20:50, 10 February 2014 (UTC)Reply
It seems it'll miss from my hands too. I have these problems at these moments— do they provide 100% scholarship? Firstly some problems and then they are not accepting my application form too "invalid error, missing the request forgery protection token". I mailed their help team, no one replied. What happened to your walking? Tito☸Dutta21:08, 10 February 2014 (UTC)Reply
Tito, they do provide 100% scholarships. Looks like they fixed your bug and added it to Mediawiki's code yesterday. It should be deployed to Wikipedia on February 20th. I have Spinal bifida#Meningocele that resulted in a Tethered spinal cord. On the Tethered cord page, under signs and symptoms, I have problems with every bulletted point. Also, throw in brain damage that causes me memory problems. Bgwhite (talk) 21:47, 10 February 2014 (UTC)Reply
Tethered spinal cord syndrome — very unfortunate and heartbreaking. I have filled the form. ping requires a signature, otherwise it does not workTito☸Dutta22:40, 10 February 2014 (UTC)Reply
I am a bit hesitant. I have applied for travel scholarship. I need to apply for passport. If there is not any chance of my scholarship application's approval, my money for the passport will get wasted. I have checked their budget, Fresh>>18 years and above>>36 pages>>Normal, they are asking ₹1,500 (US$18). My current salary is slightly more than USD 60/month. Do you think my application will have some chances? --Tito☸Dutta00:38, 11 February 2014 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hi, I just noticed it was you who added the COI and POV tags to the Julius Ashkin article. Adding to what you've already done, I have revised the article to remove text that seemed to me might suggest a personal connection with the subject or partiality towards him. -- --Delabrede (talk) 18:49, 9 February 2014 (UTC)Reply
The article is much, much better. I removed the tags and did some editing. I removed the refs to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is unreliable as anybody can edit. Bgwhite (talk) 21:16, 9 February 2014 (UTC)Reply
Bgwhite: Thank you for all you've done to strengthen this article and make it comply with Wikipedia style and rules! --Delabrede
Latest comment: 10 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
You recently made a change on SQLite from using {{col-begin}} to using {{columns-list}}. While {{columns-list}} is easier for editors, in that the actual content of each column does not need to be adjusted by hand, it requires the use of CSS3. A significant percentage of internet users continue to use browsers which do not have CSS3 capability. At a minimum, this includes all versions of IE ≤ 9. One site that had internet usage broken down by browser version number, showed that IE8 and IE9 have a combined market share of slightly more than 30%. That means that by changing from using {{col-begin}} to using {{columns-list}} results in breaking the multi-column aspect of such lists for a minimum of 30% of internet users.
The primary advantage of using {{columns-list}}, in this instance, appears to be that it is easier for editors to not have to think about balancing the columns. As mentioned, the disadvantage is breaking the multi-column aspect of such lists for more than 30% of internet users. This disadvantage far outweighs the relatively minor advantage. We should not be changing from using {{col-begin}} to using {{columns-list}}. In fact, we currently should be changing any instances of {{columns-list}} to {{col-begin}} in order to maintain compatibility with that significant a segment of internet readership. In the future, when the percentage of CSS3 disadvantaged users is much smaller, we should migrate to using {{columns-list}}. Alternately, {{columns-list}} could be re-written in a manner that does not require CSS3.
Given that you used AWB to make this change, I am concerned that it might be something that is scripted and being performed on a large number of articles. Is this the case? Makyen (talk) 01:21, 10 February 2014 (UTC)Reply
Makyen FYI... Wikipedia does not officially support IE 8 and less, but does test against older versions. Newer features such as Visual Editor and Universal Language Selector will not work on older browsers. Well, Visual Editor doesn't work anywhere, but that is a different story. Come April, Windows XP will no longer be supported, thus the lowest supported IE is 9 on Vista. Wikipedia stats have 4.5% of all page hits coming from IE 8 and less. All IE versions combined make it the third most popular browser on Wikipedia.
I visited the article because it is using template variables. No article should have template variables. Also, you should not combine template and table elements. Either go all table or all template. If you want to continue using {{col-begin}} in the article, please use {{col-3}} or {{col-break}} to delineate columns. Bgwhite (talk) 06:45, 10 February 2014 (UTC)Reply
I'd like to be able to say something reasonable about the template variables being in an article page. However, the reality is that was just stupid on my part; a copy&paste without thinking enough issue. Those have been removed.
I have also changed that table to not mix wiki markup and templates. As the templates are generally easier for editors to maintain, that is the way I left it.
I would be interested in where to find Wikipedia page hit information broken down by browser version. I did not find it in a moderately brief search. Could you point me in the direction of that information? I agree that earlier versions of IE are dying out. It will, probably, be some time before they are gone as a considerable number of people never upgrade, nor switch to a better browser. I still think that we should avoid making choices which break compatibility with older browsers. Sure, if what we want to accomplish can't be done any other way, or even if it is just hard to accomplish what is desired without using newer capabilities, then go ahead and do it. But to break backward compatibility just for a relatively minor convenience? I don't believe that is the right choice.
Makyen, I retrieved the stats from here. This is for December 2013. Today, they released the stats for January 2014 and they are located here. The majority of those at 8 or below come from corporations. What's scary is the majority of ATMs run XP. "Thanks for pointing out my error/stupidity."... sorry, but my stupidity is usually greater than anyone else's stupidity, therefore I can't point out someone's stupidity. If it happens, its just dumb luck. Bgwhite (talk) 17:31, 10 February 2014 (UTC)Reply
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 (1.23wmf13) was added to test wikis and MediaWiki.org on February 6. It will be added to non-Wikipedia wikis on February 11, and all Wikipedia wikis on February 13 (calendar).
The Vector search box was changed to fix old display and accessibility issues; for example, you can now use full-text search even if you have disabled JavaScript. Please report any problems you see. The option to disable the "simplified search bar" on Vector will also be removed. [1][2][3][4][5]
You are now notified when someone adds a link to your user page on wikis where it didn't work before (wikis with dates in the year-month-day order, including Hungarian, Japanese, Korean and some variants of Chinese). [6]
VisualEditor news
You can now set media items' alt text and position, and directly set their size, in the media tool. [7][8]
The gallery tool was improved and several issues were fixed. [9][10][11]
Problems
On February 3, all wikis were broken for about an hour due to a traffic balancing issue. [12]
On February 6, some wikis were broken for about half an hour in total due to a problem with the Math extension.
Future software changes
Some methods from Scribunto's mw.message library will be removed after February 18. If you use them in your templates or modules, please check to make sure that things will not break. [13][14]
You will soon be able to use GettingStarted on 23 new Wikipedias. It helps new users by listing possible tasks and giving help. The new version was also added to the English Wikipedia on February 7th. [15]
You will soon see results from other wikis when you use the new search tool (CirrusSearch). [16][17]
The WikiLove tool was redesigned and should also load faster. [18]
bugzilla.wikimedia.org will be updated this week. You won't be able to access it from 22:00 UTC on February 12 until 01:00 UTC on February 13 at the latest. [27]
The <poem> tag will be renamed to <lines>. The old tag will still work. [28]
Latest comment: 10 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion
Do you still have HighBeam access? Would you be willing to dig out this and email it to me, please? I might have a conflict of interest with this one but the story he tells differs from that which appears at Edinburgh Vaults and elsewhere. It is sourced to this newspaper article but I played rugby with the guy in the 1990s, am still friendly with him and know his story from well before the article was published: it is and has consistently been somewhat different. We might be in a "verifiability not truth" situation, which would be unfortunate, but I'd like to check what the source actually says just in case there is some unintentional misrepresentation. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 10:32, 10 February 2014 (UTC)Reply
Anyway, I think that this or this are what you are thinking of. For me, it is a bad edit if the intent is altered to something other than that of the person who placed the {{which}} or {{clarify}}; in these two cases I don't think that the intent was altered, but I would question the absence of any other changes (AWB rule 4 as ever). --Redrose64 (talk) 20:35, 10 February 2014 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 10 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Hello. Could you explain why you (and a subsequent user rolf nelson) have reversed my edits to the Cryonics entry? I've never edited a wikipedia entry so may not fully understand etiquette/rules. But I am trying to ensure that the important role played by Lawrence Jensen in the early formulation and publicity of cryonics is included in its history (as Alcor does in its own accounting).132.198.112.180 (talk) 15:33, 11 February 2014 (UTC)Reply
Feel free to ask me anytime. I reverted only a portion of your edit. You removed sourced (has references) material. If one does that, there needs to be a reason why given in the edit summary for each source removed. From my point of view, I don't know why you removed it. Was it a legit edit, vandalism edit or a point-of-view edit? So, I added back the material. Bgwhite (talk) 18:04, 11 February 2014 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for the response. If I removed sourced material, it was in error. My only intent was to add additional info to the history section. I suppose I'll try again soon and see how I fair. Thanks again.132.198.112.180 (talk) 18:44, 11 February 2014 (UTC)Reply
Full pagenames such as template {official website}
Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Thanks for your prompt reply at User talk:Magioladitis re Unicode characters (where I have continued).
Yesterday I almost asked about a Bgwhite revision that inserted 'website' after {official, thus using the full template name. Is that valuable? No doubt I have used {official| more than 100 times which I will cease if it costs more heat than it saves space, or whatever is at stake. --P64 (talk) 20:01, 11 February 2014 (UTC)Reply
P64, {{Official}} is a redirect to {{Official website}}. AWB automagically changes a redirect to the original template's name. Wikipedia's policy is redirects use little computing power (aka templates are cheap), thus use either one. I look at it from a new user and programming view. {{Official website}} is more obvious to a new user on what it does. It may be cheap, but it does take some (very, very small) time to process. It is a nightmare program as you have to program in the template name, but also all the redirects and new redirects are added all the time. So, long story short, it is fine to use either one. Bgwhite (talk) 21:50, 11 February 2014 (UTC)Reply
Re: What to do with TOC index?
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 10 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion
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
way to cite OED
Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
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 [[29]] (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
Köchel edit
Latest comment: 10 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion
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
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
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?!
Latest comment: 10 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
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
Latest comment: 10 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion
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
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 (1.23wmf14) was added to test wikis and MediaWiki.org on February 13. It will be added to non-Wikipedia wikis on February 18, and all Wikipedia wikis on February 20 (calendar).
The new search tool (CirrusSearch) now gives more importance to content namespaces if you search in several namespaces. [32]
You can now directly link to files viewed with MultimediaViewer, the new tool for viewing media files. [33]
You can read the summary of the Wikimedia technical report for January 2014. [34]
Problems
On February 9, Wikimedia Labs was broken for about 2 hours due to an XFS file system problem. [35]
On February 11, there were problems with VisualEditor for about 20 minutes due to a server logging issue. [36]
On the same day, for about 20 minutes there were issues with page loading due to database problems.
There were issues with page loading between 21:00 UTC on February 13 and 11:00 UTC on February 14 for users in Europe. It was due to a cache server problem.
On February 14, all sites were broken for about 15 minutes for users in Southeast Asia, Oceania and the western part of North America. It was due to problems with cache servers.
VisualEditor news
The link tool now tells you when you're linking to a disambiguation or redirect page. [37]
You can now change image display (like thumbnail, frame and frameless) with VisualEditor. [38]
Wikitext warnings will now hide when you remove wikitext from paragraphs you are editing. [39]
You will soon be able to create and edit redirect pages with VisualEditor. [40][41][42]
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I have blocked the latter as a sock of the former; regrding the remaining account, simply explain to them why their edits are incorrect/disruptive. If they cannot understand, or they continue, consider an indef block per WP:CIR or for vandalism. If you feel WP:INVOLVED then seek wider input at WP:AN. If you need any more help please let me know. GiantSnowman12:47, 17 February 2014 (UTC)Reply
Hero (2014 film)
Latest comment: 10 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Latest comment: 10 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
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
Latest comment: 10 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion
Hi there BG, AL "here",
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
Latest comment: 10 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
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.
Latest comment: 10 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
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
Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
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. :)
Latest comment: 10 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
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.
Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
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
Latest comment: 10 years ago9 comments3 people in discussion
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
Interwiki complete list
Latest comment: 10 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
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."
Latest comment: 10 years ago3 comments1 person in discussion
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
Latest comment: 10 years ago8 comments4 people in discussion
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
The End of the Tour (2014 film)
Latest comment: 10 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
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.
Latest comment: 10 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion
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
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 (1.23wmf15) was added to test wikis and MediaWiki.org on February 20. It will be added to non-Wikipedia wikis on February 25, and all Wikipedia wikis on February 27 (calendar).
The new search tool (CirrusSearch) was added to the Italian Wikiquote and all Wikiversity projects. Users can now enable it in their Beta options. [45][46]
Latest comment: 10 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
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
Latest comment: 10 years ago8 comments2 people in discussion
Hi, I'm just trying to understand Persondata (and you seem to be an expert) and get this correct. Please revert [60] 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 [62], 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 Icelanic names differently form Burmese or old Scandanavian. 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
Lae PNG
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
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.
Latest comment: 10 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
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
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
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
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:
Latest comment: 10 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
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
