User talk:Bgwhite

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from User talk:BG19bot)
Jump to: navigation, search
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 any profanity or extreme rudeness. If used in any way, it will be erased and your message not read.

About your (non)participation in the January 2012 SOPA vote[edit]

Hi. I am Piotr Konieczny (User:Piotrus), you may know me as an active content creator (see my userpage), but I am also a professional researcher of Wikipedia. Recently I published a paper (downloadable here) on reasons editors participated in Wikipedia's biggest vote to date (January 2012 WP:SOPA). I am now developing a supplementary paper, which analyzes why many editors did not take part in that vote. Which is where you come in :) You are a highly active Wikipedian, and you were active back during the January 2012 discussion/voting for the SOPA, yet you did not chose to participate in said vote. I'd appreciate it if you could tell me why was that so? For your convenience, I prepared a short survey at meta, which should not take more than a minute of your time. I would dearly appreciate you taking this minute; not only as a Wikipedia researcher but as a fellow content creator and concerned member of the community (I believe your answers may help us eventually improve our policies and thus, the project's governance). PS. If you chose to reply here (on your userpage), please WP:ECHO me. Thank you! --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 15:01, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Hey Bgwhite, any chance you could help me out with this? Few more responses would really be very valuable to me. As the 24th most active Wikipedian, your input really does matter. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 16:19, 10 February 2015 (UTC)


Thanks for removing my signature from the psychology entry. I appreciate your correcting my oversight. I have been working all day, on-and-off on a PC, and was trying decide on whether to write a note on the psychology talk page, in which a signature would be called for, and simply enter a change in the psychology page itself. I think my fatigue got to me, and I mistakenly wrote in my signature. Iss246 (talk) 14:58, 10 February 2015 (UTC)


Again, please read the policy you are claiming to enforce. In pertinent part:

A person is typically included in a list of people only if all the following requirements are met:


In other cases, editors choose even more stringent requirements, such as already having an article written (not just qualifying for one), or being notable specifically for reasons related to membership in this group. This is commonly used to control the size of lists that could otherwise run to hundreds or thousands of people, such as the List of American film actresses.

"meeting the GNG" != "already having an article". Indeed, one of the principal reasons for using lists is that they allow the presence of redlinks (which categories do not), reflecting the fact that our project is still in its infancy. Which it really is. Give me almost any field, and I can generate a list of hundreds/thousands of unquestionably notable topics that do not yet have any coverage in Wikipedia. -- Visviva (talk) 05:50, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

  1. You are NOT reading things correctly. Redlinks are allowed ONLY IF they meet nobility requirements. As you quoted above, "A person is typically included in a list of people only if all the following requirements are met: The person meets the Wikipedia notability requirement.
  2. See WP:REDDEAL, very last item, Lists of "notable people" in an article, such as the "Notable alumni" section in an article on a university, tend to accrue red links, or non-links, listing people of unverifiable notability. Such list entries should often be removed, depending on the list-selection criteria chosen for that list.
  3. This is done so lists do not become full of non-notable people.
If they are notable, write up an article about them. If they are notable and you don't want to take the time to write about them, then add valid references. References from the people's company or the University are not valid for the list. Bgwhite (talk) 06:05, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Error with Bot?[edit]

This edit's edit message says: "WP:CHECKWIKI error fix for #61. Punctuation goes before References." Instead what the bot did was create named refs, something I don't think should be done without discussion and concensus on the talk page. Paul August 12:55, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

The bot did move a colon from after the ref to before. This is the reason the bot arrived at the article.
The bot has approval to do all of AWB's general fixes. AWB has been bundling citations for a atleast five years. It is also preferred via MOS. It is a requirement for featured articles. I left a message on the article's talk page. Bgwhite (talk) 19:02, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply. I will fix that pesky colon. Paul August 20:52, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
By "bundling citations" do you mean the technique described at WP:CITEBUNDLE? The Giants article already does this. Paul August 21:34, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
Wrong choice of words on my part. I meant what happens with WP:REFNAME. Bgwhite (talk) 05:48, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
OK thanks for clearing that up. Can you point me to where named refs are reguired for featured articles? I don't see any such requirement in WP:FA? for example. Also where do you see it prefered in MOS? Thanks for your help. Paul August 14:36, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
With FA and FL there are many unwritten rules. Look at the most recent FAs. You will see every article with named refs. One doesn't have to set up a reference and bibliography section. If one does do that, there doesn't need to be a link in the ref section that will take you the item in the bibliography section. However, you can be asked to do it if reviewers feel it is necessary, it is more dependent on the type of article. Examples, a pop article (music or actor) won't have many journal references or in a short FA it becomes overkill, thus no separate sections.
WP:CITEFOOT. How do you deal with repeated citations? How to avoid clutter? Citing multiple pages of the same source? Named references. Bgwhite (talk) 22:20, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
FA doesn't specify - or even prefer - any one citation style. It does require consistent citations, described at WP:WIAFA as "consistently formatted inline citations using either footnotes (<ref>Smith 2007, p. 1.</ref>) or Harvard referencing (Smith 2007, p. 1)...". If in a given article several of the refs are entirely duplicated, but none of them are named, that is consistent. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:33, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
As I said, unwritten rule. You will be asked to use named refs, but not told which style. Bgwhite (talk) 22:39, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

According the talk page, rewrite the article to reflect the truth Universidad Empresarial de Costa Rica[edit]

It seems, the truth explained by SEVERAL users in the talk page for the article is been ignored. Please read the facts in the talk page shown by SEVERAL WORLWIDE users. The actual article does NOT reflect what has been discussed there.Ramdiesel (talk) 17:57, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

The Taliban Shuffle (film)[edit]

Hello B, please move Draft:The Taliban Shuffle (film) to The Taliban Shuffle (film) without leaving a redirect, thanks. --Captain Assassin! «TCG» 03:54, 12 February 2015 (UTC)


Concerning the change from {{cite journal}} (and |author=) to {{vcite2 journal}} (and |vauthors=) in FGF15, this is not a change in citation style. {{cite journal}} and {{vcite2 journal}} produce identical output when Vancouver style authors are stored in a single author parameter as was uniformly done in this article. Switching to {{vcite2 journal}}/|vauthors= maintains this style and hence is compatible with WP:CITEVAR. In addition {{vcite2 journal}} (|vauthors=) produces clean author metadata and is fully compatible with |author-link= and |displayauthors= whereas {{cite journal}} (|author=) is not. Replacing |author= with more verbose "first1, last1, first2, last2, ..." parameters would change the format from Vancouver style to CS1 style authors is hence not compatible with WP:CITEVAR. Boghog (talk) 05:31, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Boghog Not exactly. 1/2 the refs use CS1 style, while the other 1/2 use authors. {{cite journal}} actually produces more and better metadata. Cite journal is faster than vcite journal to render. Cite journal has error checks in place. I give up for today. Not directed toward you, but I'm tired of people saying they can do what the hell they want because. Accessibility issues is of no concern. MOS is of no concern. I'm not going to get worked up for something as trivial as this. Do want you want. Bgwhite (talk) 06:08, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
OK, thanks. Just to clarify, {{vcite2 journal}} produces metadata that is identical to {{cite journal}}. {{vcite2 journal}} internally parses the |vauthors= parameter and invisible to the editor, assigns author data to sequential "firstn, lastn, ..." parameters. The computational overhead of this parsing is insignificant. Boghog (talk) 06:26, 12 February 2015 (UTC)


Thank you for your edit on Zoom Video Communications. I didn't spot those errors. You've just inspired me to be a little more vigilant. Meşteşugarul - U 11:03, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Kindness Barnstar Hires.png The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
TRULY appreciate your time, effort and improvements. Still a neophyte to wiki- editing. Your review history did not show at first [program glitch?] so I didn't know who or what or where my edits were going or why. Startarrant (talk) 13:53, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't know where to put explanations or replies/questions to edit actions. I thought I was doing so in the update box.

  1. If I cannot use the google drive as a TEMPORARY hotlink to reference an accurate, complete and authentic source-material do I upload the ref work to wiki docs?
  2. The article focus on the Order / "minims" is not possible or intelligible without reference to and some bio info regarding the person directly involved in its establishment -- some sort of table/box as a quick VISUAL reference for wiki users is needed with photo as simple quick reference data as I listed it.
  3. is there a space issue in using the code P (occasionally) instead of the BR ?

More later -- I TRULY appreciate your help.Startarrant (talk) 01:01, 13 February 2015 (UTC)startarrant

Startarrant First off, I really enjoyed the article. You've put alot of work into it.
  1. There is another reason you can't use the Google drive. It appears to be a copyright violation. It is a copy of a book whose first page says it can't be copied without permission. You may have permission, but the evil lawyers want proof. In the meantime, you can still use the reference, but not the link. I added the reference into the article. Take a look how I did it, so you can add it elsewhere.
  2. The article is not about her. I suggest creating another article that is just about her.
  3. I did an edit to the top image. Should look better.
  4. The article should be from a neutral point of view. People from all over the world will be looking at it. Saying "Our Lord" is not neutral.
Bgwhite (talk) 06:42, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
Bgwhite I do truly appreciate and thank you for your time and effort to improve this page
  1. Thank you for adding the way to do the reference -- I do have the permission and give permission, and I also have the copyright on that particular English presentation. Because it is "unaltered" I left ALL the original text including the permission monitum which is mainly to prevent any alterations of the text etc -- the book is copied and altered all over the web. No alms go to lawyers (Canon Lawyers and Church tribunals cannot charge). The unaltered text and translation is fair usage world-over in any media.
  2. there is simply no history of the Order apart from Maria, as there are no 10 Commandments in Stone without Moses -- it is because people from around the world will read the article that even if (and when) I have time after this is done to add a separate bio article -- readers prefer to have the basic info -- if they want to read more in a bio that can be added later
  3. I'll use "The Lord" as a simple quote -- compatible with similar use in Genesis etc.
  1. Instructions for copyright approval is at Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. There is an email address in there that you use to send your request. The staff that handle the requests usually have more work than people, so it can take some time.
  2. True about the Ten Commandments and Moses. However, Moses does have an article and the Ten Commandments article is more about the commandments than Moses. Same goes for the Franciscan Order. Bgwhite (talk) 17:43, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
  1. Thank you again for whatever your bot did. I am too brain dead from 12 hour days helping a friend in the hospital to understand the code changes with the refs but I will check again when my brain is working. Somehow a link to Anna in the Temple vanished not sure if I messed up or what as I can't find who what or where it went (I have it and can reinsert [later]).
  2. As for photo of Friars and Nuns in the (Maroon) Habit and 2nd (Mexico City) Foundation I did change name and focus from Maria. She's probably egging you on to keep her out of the picture so to speak but her timeline info is integral to understanding the development of the Order and satisfying interest. It's still incomplete -- work in progress as I need to check sources and dates. I will do a separate bio but can't at the moment. I am not inserting bio details that are not directly linked to the Order & origins. Too brain dead to tweak the image data on the group photo op of 1971 but I want the box visual because it manifests the text, nationality and time period. Startarrant (talk) 08:17, 15 February 2015 (UTC)startarrant
  1. I removed the references to "Our Lord" at your recommendation and kept (you would need to remove the quote "the Lord" from all wiki pages and wiki references throughout the entire Wikipedia and all Hebrew scriptures) the term that wiki uses in all its other referenced articles "the Lord" because that is the also the correct reference in the related Hebrew scriptural passages as reference in the article origins and elucidation of terms. I either own the copyrights to the photos I use or they are fair usage (the 1943 colorized in 1960s photo portrait of the dead founder). Because I am not a pro on wiki, like yourself, I have done my best to incorporate your recommendations, which I appreciate as opposed to the emotional vandalism or false claims of others, and I tried to fill out the copyright forms as correctly as possible. Truth, accuracy, facts, evidence are matters of life and death in my work (eternal and temporal) so the truth matters to me. I do have the evidence necessary, others who have copied my work to their personal websites do not; but again, the photos are fair usage and the Order "owns" nothing -- and I do not -- no one receives income from or will -- from any images, published works, etc -- permissions extend only to protect the writings from alterations, deletions, etc. I was tasked in 1973 to work on the 3rd Foundation in Rome directly under the Holy See. The article for wiki is to make available to all -- accurate information based on real sources materials and eye witness accounts and not political or religious agendas. Boxes are an important visual for text articles.
  2. I just notice that my revision was undone -- the one that removed "Our Lord" and replaced it with "the Lord" in quotes. This is a problem when auto reverts/undos are triggered. I re-corrected the text which I did long ago when your FIRST made the recommendation. I need to know the specific problems with my info box -- I've asked for help with getting an alternate box or header/titles more appropriate for an organization since I don't know how to change the headers. I have kept the focus on the Order/Work and minimized focus on the founder. I suspect a rogue android bot hacked your handle and left a note of extreme rudeness since it is entirely alien to your style. "A Rose by any other name ... "
  3. no time to discuss setbacks to the "setbacks" section especially since it needs work anyway, however it is so neutral and inclusive and non-judgmental that that may be why it is confusing. I'd undo it but your edits usually force me to improve the quality in a good way so I'll try to figure out how to improve / clarify that section and your other deletion of my one sentence summary at the end. The bishop's quote is from his actual letter declaring the canonical status. I need to reference that as you showed me with the other refs. Later. Startarrant (talk) 05:40, 25 February 2015 (UTC)startarrantStartarrant (talk) 22:14, 24 February 2015 (UTC)startarrant

Startarrant (talk) 21:43, 24 February 2015 (UTC)startarrant

BG19bot edit in Roperi[edit]

Roperi looked weird, and I peeked in the revision history. Would this bot edit interest you? -- Sam Sing! 14:30, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Magioladitis Any reason AWB picked that location to put reflist? Bgwhite (talk) 21:44, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Austin 12/6[edit]

I went to save half an hour ago after almost 8 hours straight working on the above article and of course we had an edit clash. I think I have fixed it so all your amendments are incorporated but, specially if it is a bot, it might be worth running it again in case I missed a correction. Thanks, Eddaido (talk) 04:20, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Eddaido Phew, good thing you didn't lose anything. It wasn't a bot. I just ran again and made only superficial changes. Bgwhite (talk) 06:14, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
And I just tried to save and found out! How do I avoid this (I can see it would look as if I had finished when I wrote to you above, not your fault). Wish me luck. Thanks, Eddaido (talk) 06:38, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
Eddaido Not much to do. It's just the luck of the draw. You can either save more often, or use your sandbox to write. If it is a big long session, probably best if you did write in the sandbox. Nobody bothering you. You don't have to worry about the revision being "perfect" if you have to leave. Bgwhite (talk) 06:46, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, All Finished! Eddaido (talk) 06:53, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Speedying a film[edit]

I note you removed lots of piped links leading to a user page (User:Kskhh) from the article Revenge Matters. Reading that user-page, it is clear that the user is trying to promote his own film. All the references at Revenge Matters are to "The Gilgit Express" - which is a "website under construction", here, clearly created by the same person, and which does not even support the citations in the article.
Am I right that I cannot speedy a film for non-notability, as A7. covers "No indication of importance (individuals, animals, organizations, web content, events" and A9. "No indication of importance (musical recordings)" but films don't fit into either category? - Arjayay (talk) 08:55, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Arjayay You are right, you cannot speedy it. As a Prod will probably be removed, I'd say do an AfD on it. However, as this is a non-English, Pakistani film, better ask an expert. Assassin, are there any non-English sources for this film? Is it an AfD candidate? Bgwhite (talk) 09:16, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks - I don't understand why some things can be speedied, but others can't - I don't have a tame Pakistani film expert, so I'll see what he says - Arjayay (talk) 16:48, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
Sorry B and Arjayay, actually ping does not work for me many times. I came here today to request for a move and I saw this. Actually this article can't be a speedy so it is absolutely an AfD candidate. Not have even a single reliable source as a proof of the film. Nominate it for the discussion please. --Captain Assassin! «TCG» 18:27, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Problem with your bot[edit]

Your bot made this change to the article Minsk II. Yobot did the same thing the other day. In both cases, the change broke the numbering of the list of measures. I'd like to know how to prevent the bots from doing this, so I don't have to fix it each time one comes around. RGloucester 20:04, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

I can't remember the name of the template. Magioladitis knows. Bgwhite (talk) 01:28, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
RGloucester, the template is {{Paragraph break}} Bgwhite (talk) 05:47, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
I just noticed this. It seems ping did not work. -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:09, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Joy (film)[edit]

Will you please move Draft:Joy (film) to Joy (film) ? - Thanks. --Captain Assassin! «TCG» 18:28, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Your bot got tripped up[edit]

FYI, with this edit, your bot seems to have been tripped up by an earlier bad edit which broke the level-2 header "In science and technology". That may be a contingency you'd want to code for - to check for a broken level-2 header (i.e. a single "==") before changing the levels of other headings. Or not; perhaps it's too obscure an error to bother with. Either way, I thought I'd bring it to your attention. Swpbtalk 14:10, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Swpb Thanks for bringing this to my attention. This isn't a case of something too obscure, but one of too many false positives. There are too many false positives where == is found in a line or at the end of the line. However, you got me off my butt to check for cases where there is wording before the first == in a heading (example is Dhapri Sultanpur). I already check for cases where there is wording after the last ==. I'm almost done doing a scan and I've found 1,200 articles so far with this problem. Oh joy, this will be fun to fix. Bgwhite (talk) 21:32, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Edit request for Sophie Hunter page[edit]

Hunter has notable family members and should be included in her infobox. Please do help me in adding the family parameter. :) You can just copy-paste the one I made. Just replace the parentheses with brackets for linking. All references are in the family section of her page already. THANK YOU VERY MUCH!!!

|family= ((Michael Gow (British Army officer)|Michael James Gow GCB))(maternal grandfather)
((J. E. B. Seely, 1st Baron Mottistone)) (maternal great-great-grandfather)
((Timothy Carlton)) (father-in-law)
((Wanda Ventham)) (mother-in-law) (talk) 01:12, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Misplaced or misworded "no footnotes|section"[edit]

Hello, Bgwhite. Your BG19bot put a {{no footnotes|section}} tag in the External links section of Gotcha journalism. That produced the flag

I've deleted it. AFAIK, the External links section of an article isn't expected to have footnotes.

To discuss this, please {{Ping}} me. --Thnidu (talk) 07:25, 21 February 2015 (UTC)


Please don't remove the nobots tag from Head-directionality parameter - various different bots are programmed in such a way that they will mess up this article (they see double square brackets and assume they must be marking a link, whereas in many instances in this article they do not). I've tried adding the article to various whitelists, but that has no effect. W. P. Uzer (talk) 10:38, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

W. P. Uzer, you need to follow the instructions at {{nobots}}.
  1. Avoid using the template as a blunt instrument. You are using it as a blunt instrument. You are disallowing ALL bots, even though the vast majority do not touch brackets.
  2. Address the root problem with the bot owner or bot community You did not do that.
You added it to CheckWiki whitelists, but after the list was created that the bot used. Bgwhite (talk) 20:01, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
I'm not going to waste everyone's time discussing it when the bot owners don't need to do anything - there's nothing wrong with the bots, they just need to leave this particular article alone, which the nobots template would have accomplished perfectly well. Let's hope your theory about the whitelist is correct and there won't be any more problems (quite why the bots need to create their own list separate from the one that already exists isn't clear to me, but still). W. P. Uzer (talk) 20:17, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
W. P. Uzer I don't think you understand and/or I'm not saying it right.
You edited the CheckWiki whitelists. These are for CheckWiki only. It is good that you added the article to the whitelist, however no bot directly uses them. Bots use the lists generated from Checkwiki. If another type of CheckWiki error is detected in the article, the bot will visit.
You blocked all bots. There is only ONE type of bot that does brackets. You broke rule #1. If you contact the bot owner, they can either offer a work around (which fixes the problem in the vast majority of cases) or properly add their bot type to the nobot template. Bgwhite (talk) 20:31, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
OK, good, we seem to have reached a solution to the problem, but perhaps next time you could be a little less brusque and patronizing, e.g. explaining what the problem is before starting an edit war with someone who's trying in good faith to prevent your and other people's bots from repeatedly messing up an article. W. P. Uzer (talk) 20:44, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
Huh?? My first statement I said was "Please follow the instructions on the template doc page". I haven't a clue how that is brusque or patronizing. You continually made various bad assumptions. The instructions are clearly laid out and you didn't follow them when applying the nobot tag. The "reached a solution" is for you to follow the instructions, which you still haven't followed. Next time, follow instructions instead of making various bad assumptions and accusations. Bgwhite (talk) 21:06, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
I am actually more interested in preventing Wikipedia articles from being repeatedly screwed up than in following some vaguely expressed instructions somewhere. I would have hoped a bot owner might have a similar order of priorities - disappointed to find out this one doesn't. W. P. Uzer (talk) 21:41, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Tech News: 2015-09[edit]

16:28, 23 February 2015 (UTC)


Hi, please check QupZilla again, as far as I can tell it lede before TOC before first section per WP:LEADORDER should be perfectly okay for screen readers, the image to the right of the TOC ("below" from a screen reader POV) is invisible for screen readers, and the old layout was visually ugly/messy. Dropping the image completely is definitely no good plan, it illustrates a feature ("passed ACID3 test") not yet sufficiently covered in the text. –Be..anyone (talk) 07:02, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Be..anyone There should be no material between the TOC and section header. Images are not invisible to screen readers. Shouldn't the blind reader know the browser is ACID3 compatible? The image can also be moved into the article. I moved it into a "better" spot than it was before... hope that it looks better now. I can't find it, but I swear TOC shouldn't be inside tables. As I can't find it, then it can't be taken into account.
On a side note.... As ACID3 has been "discontinued" and webkit does pass ACID3, why mention it? Wouldn't HTML5test be more appropriate now?
Second side note... never heard of the browser before. It looks very interesting and promising, especially with a Linux version. I assume you use it. What do you like about it? Is it staying with Webkit or moving to Google's blink? Does it support extensions? Bgwhite (talk) 09:12, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
Just in case, I didn't add the image, I only linked Acid3, because the page existed, and I have a vague idea what this test suite is, or rather, as you say, was. If the test is not more relevant that's a good reason to get rid of this image of an unpublished version 1.70—1.6.6 was followed by 1.8.0. I like the browser, because 1.6.6 works in my Windows 2000 VM (years after Firefox gave up on W2K.) If I ditch Chrome when they'll drop NPAPI in some months I need a new browser, IE11, FF again, or maybe this slick and simple QupZilla.
We still disagree in theory about the WP:LEADORDER guideline. There is no visible material between TOC and first section for screen readers, they ignore pictures unless they come with an alt= or longdesc= or whatever is state of the art in 2015, and iff MediaWiki supports it, AFAIK it's limited to alt=empty or not.Face-smile.svgBe..anyone (talk) 01:10, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
On encountering an image, screen reader software will announce that an image has been reached. They then announce the alt text; if this is absent, they announce the filename; and finally the caption (AFAIK MediaWiki does not yet support the longdesc= attribute). But the point is that they announce something, and that whatever that "something" happens to be, it cannot be placed between the TOC and the first section heading. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:23, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

February 2015[edit]

Stop icon
Your recent editing history at Female genital mutilation shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:09, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Next time you revert you may be blocked. But I am sure you know that. Try consensus first. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:09, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

You are edit warring. Your 30 seconds of discomfort to translate a page to Swahili is more important than millions of blind users ability to read a page is appalling. Because an English Wikipedia template is not available on the Swahili Wikipedia is not a valid reason to engage in bigotry. You never answered why you are more important than blind readers. Next time, try consensus for overturning accessibility when you want to revert. Bgwhite (talk) 07:31, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Please read WP:CIVIL Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:43, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
You claim your "accessibility" (that is the word you used) to translate the page to Swahili is more important than the accessibility of millions blind users to read an entire page. You are saying your 30 extra seconds of discomfort over the ability of blind readers to read the entire page is more important. Bgwhite (talk) 08:40, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
You have already said that like 6 times. If you are not interested in discussion or compromise all the best. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:45, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
Last time I checked, there is no compromise on the ability of screen reader users to read a page. Your only option is wanting it gone. If you are not interested in blind readers, all the best. Bgwhite (talk) 08:51, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Announcement: Brother Bgwhite is indeed Human[edit]

Brother Bghwhite in one of his better days

Brother Bgwhite is Human! Because he is watching my page to notice what new pictures will be posted! Of course he will never admit that - but he can't fool anyone. Hafspajen (talk) 10:57, 25 February 2015 (UTC)


OK, I have done my thinking, but I am still nowhere. Cos' I don't understand. Are you trying to say that using {{-}} to correct the alignment on your page is causing the problem with the Archive Bot? And to use {{clear}} instead? I didn't want the Bot to archive some things so included {{DNAU}} but the bot seems to sometimes ignore it and that's what happened during last night. Should it be {{subst:DNAU}} instead ... or? --Hafspajen (talk) 12:46, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Hafs The {{-}} comments has nothing to with the archive bots. It was a segue-way to the next comment I made. There is a difference between the two templates, but in reality, it isn't anything to be worried about.
You should use {{subst:DNAU}}. By using "subst", it changes the template to the name the archive bots use and adds a date when the template was applied. The archive bot does not recognise just {{DNAU}}. Bgwhite (talk) 08:02, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Please correct misinformation about where to edit about bot problems, care in coding[edit]

If messages don't go on the bot talk page, please don't tell editors to override the redirect to put them there.

From the bot's instruction page:

"This user account is a bot that uses AutoWikiBrowser, operated by Bgwhite (talk). It is a legitimate alternative account, used to make repetitive automated or semi-automated edits that would be extremely tedious to do manually. The bot is approved and currently active – the relevant request for approval can be seen here.

To stop this bot until restarted by the bot's owner, edit its talk page. If that page is a redirect, edit that original redirecting page, not the target of the redirect.

MicroPaLeo (talk) 10:59, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

MicroPaLeo It says, "To stop this bot", not to leave a message. This is the standard bot template found on the vast majority of bot pages. There was no reason to stop the bot as the bot was making no grave error, little alone a minor one. Leaving a message on my talk page was the correct thing to do.
The bot functioned as the edit summary stated. There was a section header problem. There was only one "=" starting the section header, which is not allowed per WP:ACCESSIBILITY. The section header was already unbalanced and the bot left it unbalanced. The bot caused no error, but corrected one. Bgwhite (talk) 18:26, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Did I miss the instructions on how to contact the bot owner about problems? I looked at the user page and talk page, and the only information is about stopping the bot, as there is no other error reporting information, it seemed like that is what you wanted. Or are error reports are not allowed? Other bots I have seen have links in their edit summaries.
If the bot cannot correct the error, the bot should not be making an edit to the article, so please fix this, meaning the code so that the bot either does not edit unbalanced headers or corrects them, but not that it edits and leaves it unbalanced.
Also, the bot edit message does not need to accuse editors of "violating" anything by trying to start a useful article on a missing topic, a simple link to MOS headings would be nicer. MicroPaLeo (talk) 19:02, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
MicroPaLeo, the bot did fix the error it came there to fix. It did not arrive there to fix unbalanced headers. The bot does not have approval to fix unbalanced headers. The unbalanced header problem was there before the bot arrived and was still there after the bot left. The article was in violation of WP:MOSHEAD and the link was given. It is common practice to redirect the talk page, this includes top 10 editing bots ClueBot NG, RussBot and User:Xqbot and people who use more than one account (See WP:BOTACC, Bot operators may wish to redirect a bot account's discussion page to their own.). It is redirected so I don't have people contacting me in two places about the bot and I get notification of the message immediately. Everything had been done according to standard practice and procedures. Bgwhite (talk) 21:10, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
If the bot does not have approval to fix unbalanced headers, why did it edit them? Have you looked at the edit? If you don't realize it is doing this, and refuse to look at what the bot is doing, I really hope this is not "standard practice and procedures." A bot not supposed to edit something, should not be editing it. Sounds like the bot is broken. MicroPaLeo (talk) 21:23, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
It doesn't have approval to FIX the unbalanced header problem and it did not fix unbalanced header problem, but it can still fix other problems with the header. As I previously explained, the bot does have approve to fix headers that start with only one "=". I did look at the article. You created the article with unbalanced headers and with a header that started with only one "=". The bot DID FIX the MOSHEAD issue and left the header unbalanced. You say the bot is broken in which it didn't cause any errors, didn't fix any errors that it wasn't supposed to and did fix the error it arrived there to do? How is that broken? That's like saying the bot fixed the spelling of "practic", but didn't fix the spelling of "thier" in the same sentence, so the bot should be deactivated. Bgwhite (talk) 22:09, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Before the bot edit here was one left equal and two right, the bot added one to each side. Part of coding is seeing problems. If you make tons of edits, and it takes this much effort to explain what you should be able to see by clicking on the link above, this is a big problem--that you still can't see what is wrong with the bot changing things that it is supposedly not touching. Yes, this is a serious error in code. MicroPaLeo (talk) 22:50, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

I posted here. I don't know why you have your bot adding an extra equal sign to each side of an unbalanced header, but you should fix it to ignore unbalanced headers instead of pointlessly editing them to still be unbalanced. Maybe someone there can explain this to you. MicroPaLeo (talk) 23:24, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Special Bghwite-vapen room[edit]

The Billiard Room
Hafspajen (talk) 22:14, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Hafs, that wouldn't be my room. It would by my wife's as she has the weapons. Plus, it's called the torture chamber.
I've actually seen that... atleast I think I did. I did go thru the Hermitage museum. After a couple of hours, it just becomes too overwhelming and starts looking all the same. My favourite of St. Petersburg was the Peterhof Palace Complex. That is a fountain. Bgwhite (talk) 22:45, 26 February 2015 (UTC)