I believe most editors use Incorrect English, the second most common is American English, followed by Indian English and British English. -- Arnd Bergmann
Welcome to my talk page
I make plenty of errors - if you are here to complain about a tag or a warning, please assume good faith.
If I have erred, don't hesitate to tell me, but being rude will get you nowhere.
I will not tolerate anyprofanity or extreme rudeness. If used in any way, it will be erased and your message not read.
Archives
Bot archives discussions after 30 days of inactivity into the latest archive
I'm not quite sure how to do this but i would like to understand what i can do to get donald burgy's page to stay up. you are asking for more references but there are many at the end of his page. what kind of references are you looking for exactly?? thank you. and where should I look for your response? I think i just fixed it - i removed the list of exhibtions. but then where would that info go? it is encyclopedic, no?
Nita nomad (talk) 3 March 2015
Hey Bgwhite. I just had a question about your revision on my page. . (WP:CHECKWIKI error fix for #61. Punctuation goes before References. Do general fixes if a problem exists. - using AWB (10839))
What does this mean? I am new to wiki and need help with technical language thus i apologize for the inconvenience. Also any other suggestions for my article?
zzynat231 (talk)
Hey there could you explain to me then step by step how to properly place a navbox? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ramosc55 (talk • contribs) 04:04, 3 April 2015
Hello BGwhite, could you please move Hermenegildo Gutiérres back to the original name: Hermenegildo Gutiérrez? If you have any questions about the move, please contact me. I created the article but again we have a Portuguese vs.Spanish war. He was from Galicia, count in Portugal, when Portugal was still a county, and most sources call him Hermenegildo Gutiérrez, including the ones that I used when I created the article. I tried to move him from Hermenegildo Guterres but made a mistake, so Hermenegildo Gutiérres should be destroyed, afterwards, since the spelling is incorrect and Hermenegildo Guterres should stay as a redirect. Many thanks, --Maragm (talk) 17:06, 4 April 2015 (UTC) pd..the same with Mendo Gonçalves back to original name, Menendo González[reply]
Hi. Wondering why we add "default sort" to articles when it doesn't change how they sort. We now have hundreds of language articles that sort improperly because they've been moved since defaultsort was added. So there's a downside, but I don't see any upside. Different of course if there's non-ASCII characters in the name that mess up the sorting. — kwami (talk) 17:11, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
kwami we do this to delist them from the list of pages with special characters in their title. This helps us to know which pages we still have to deal with. -- Magioladitis (talk) 17:52, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
kwami, there are three main reasons to add Defaultsort. 1) When there is not the standard 26-letter English alphabet, number and a few special characters present. Special characters are not that obvious, but and example would be using "&" or "and". Rules followed are from the major libraries and indexing associations. These are the articles on the lists that Magioladitis mentioned. 2) Names of People. Example, western names are usually sorted surname, firstname. I do add defaultsort to biography articles where the name is identical to defaultsort. It keeps AWB or other people from adding the wrong value. 3) Articles that shouldn't be sorted by their title. "List of" articles are the most common. Bgwhite (talk) 21:52, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I remember it occurring with language articles with only ASCII characters, but will keep my eyes open for examples. — kwami (talk) 22:18, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
kwami If you see cases where there shouldn't be a defaultsort, then just remove it. I do remove them. People do add it thinking it needs one. If you want to get really confused, see WP:SORTKEY (especially 3rd item, "Only hyphens, apostrophes...") and WP:NAMESORT. I mostly wrote NAMESORT, so I can increase your confusion if you have questions to the confusion on the page. :) Bgwhite (talk) 22:31, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You will often see older articles with a defaultsort which differs from the page name purely in its capitalisation. This is a legacy of a time when category sorting was case-sensitive: sorting was uppercase first, then lowercase, so that "a" sorted after "Z". As a result, it was normal practice that if any word in the page name began with a lowercase letter, like Oxford railway station, the article would be given e.g. {{DEFAULTSORT:Oxford Railway Station}} (like this) so that it would sort before Oxford Rewley Road railway station instead of after Oxford Youth Theatre. In March 2011, category sorting became case-insensitive, so that "a" sorts with "A"; and so when you find such cases, they may safely be removed, like this. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:44, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Assistance
Hi BgWhite, I see you are a master editor. I'm reaching out to see if you can help me in adding an article about economics without violating the complex policies. Can you help? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phd.dr.candidate (talk • contribs) 14:45, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You like exotic things, no?
Hi Bgwhite
I think, the page 'Stephen Gill, the Writer' was right, which you have deleted today. Kindly think to reinstate it. The information was absolutely genuine. I think, you even didn't read my talk-page, where I requested that the ultra new matter has been uploaded and the previous one was replaced/deleted. You must check it.
Hi Bgwhite, I just wanted to thank you for being around for users, and not getting irate at wind ups. Please stick around, Wikipedia needs people like you. All the best, 81.129.188.25 (talk) 18:07, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What?
It's a bit unprofessional to say "I'm sick of you", I don't thing you should address other users like this,
Very respectfully,
User:Perdika,
Perdika I never said that. Please don't lie. On your talk page I said, "I'm getting sick and tired of fixing everything you touch." I've warned you multiple times now. You keep doing the same mistakes in every article you edit. You keep adding bogus references. Do it correctly. Bgwhite (talk) 20:12, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sir, first of all, allow me to thank you for making some technical improvements to this article. but i would have definitely not objected if your recent changes had been legitimate. Firstly, Read the "Talk' page of this article carefully. the subject of this article is a widely-known personality of the twentieth century era when there was no internet. As i have already stated in the talk page, i have the hard copies of the newspapers and the journals and other media outlets which have published about the important endeavors of the subject earning him international fame. thats why there are some of his books without an internet reference (like the History of Islam series) because internet did not even exist during that period. He has written numerous books and has won appreciations from even the former US President. Secondly, the photos of the subject are with VVIPs who have been Presidents, influential ministers and Scholars of world fame. Thirdly, not every scholar on planet gets a chance to be the Fulbright-hays scholar from entire Asia and teach in American Universities... Finally, i would like to tell you that the article is still in the making. There is a lot to be written in this article. It will be a comprehensive article dealing with all the aspects of the subject's character. So i would request you not to be so impatient to hastily make absurd key changes to the article... thanks User:S M M Iqbal
Incidentally, i should request you to revert your latest changes with regard to the "unreferenced" content.
S M M Iqbal There is no need to spread this on three different talk pages. Please keep it on one page. Again:
You have been warned against editing your own article by me and other people.
Things are supposed to be written neutrally... saying accomplished biographer or renowned Islamic Scholar is not neutral.
Its just you who has been editing this article and there is no one besides you who has warned me from editing my own article.
saying that things should be written neutrally is absolutely right, but at the same time, cant i even 'quote what a newspaper has published'. If the newspaper has written "prominent historian," am i not allowed to write the same?
regarding Verifiability, ofcourse wikipedia has its own terms and conditions and we have to abide by that. So i am working on it.
ٰI didt understand that "tildas" part.. thank u
1) On the article's talk page, you were warned by Wikicology. There is also a COI tag on the talk page.
2) Usually not. This is called peacock words. In this specific case, the newspaper doesn't know if a person is "prominent" or not. They fling around peacock terms with everybody in the article.
4) End all your talk messages with four tildas. This will sign your message, just like the end off all my posts. See here ---> Bgwhite (talk) 22:40, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanx
Thanx for the catch... I'm surprised that I got no notice from a bot on that one... Don't worry about correcting... I know which pages have been done and can go through the list, making the correction more easily than you can... GWFrog (talk) 22:51, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
GWFrog I should have them all corrected. They were picked up by Checkwiki. I sure wish there was an "idiot filter" to pick up cases like this before pressing save. Sure would save me alot of time from my own "idiot" mistakes. Bgwhite (talk) 22:56, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Like I said, I'm surprised there was no notice from the bot that usually catches those pesky broken brackets... As I've been going over them, I've found others caught by Dale Arnett and some done on a different day that were okay... GWFrog (talk) 23:01, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I fixed California Golden Bears, FIU Panthers, Florida State Seminoles, Louisiana–Monroe Warhawks , New Mexico Lobos, and New Orleans Privateers; found I had not changed New Orleans Privateers to the proper cite format; and discovered that another editor, in redoing the South Carolina Gamecocks article, completely removed the teams list for the school's 21 teams, while only covering 14 of them in the text... All 45 schools sponsoring sand volleyball should now be good to go on the sport... Again, thanx muchly for catching the problem... GWFrog (talk) 01:07, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Stevage It was done by Visual Editor and VE has a tendency to barf all over the page. So many things wrong...
Section header in the middle of a line made with <h2> tags. A reflist in a middle of an article. Use of <b> and <i> tags. I haven't a clue what <sup href="Wikipedia:Citing is supposed to mean. Bgwhite (talk) 04:35, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, ok. Maybe too ambitious to use the visual editor for this one. Actually rendered pretty much fine. Fixed now. Stevage04:25, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Why are you wiping my recent edits?
You have just wiped recent edits I have made claiming they are spam and that I have been using AWB to do the,m. This is not true. I am the author of both books - the references I have been replacing (by hand, individually - not by using AWB). The reason I am changing them is that I am replacing the earlier references from my first edition to those from my second, corrected, updated and enlarged edition of the book - and the only one now in print. If you have a good reason for reverting my edits - please let me know - otherwise I will be forced to revert your edits. Sincerely, John Hill (talk)
I am not adding my books - I am replacing references from the first edition of my book with the later edition of that book. And I must ask you to reconsider your comment that self-published books are not reliable. Some may well be - just as some books published by reliable renowned publishing houses may not be reliable. You need to check more than the publisher to know if a work can be considered "reliable."
Take a look instead at the six unsolicited 5-star reviews of the first edition of my book on Amazon.com (at: http://www.amazon.com/Through-Jade-Gate-Rome-Centuries/dp/1439221340/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1429081248&sr=1-2&keywords=through+the+jade+gate+to+rome) and, when you add them to the fact that it has been quoted or cited as a reference in literally dozens of respected academic works, how can you label it as "not reliable"? Add that to the fact that a well-known European academic publisher is presently offering to publish my next book, as they were so impressed with my first book. Finally, on the basis of the success of my first book (which was also self-published) I was invited to participate in two international conferences - one in Beijing and another in Berlin (to which they actually paid the fares for both myself and my wife). Please, I don't want to get in a battle with you - nor am I querying your motives - I just cannot stand by and see you attacking my reputation - which is well-established in my field. Yours, John Hill (talk) 07:15, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You are updating the book's citation. The original citation that you added. The original citation was to a self-published book. The link you gave at Amazon was to a self-published book. Amazon "reviews" mean nothing. I am not attacking your reputation. This has nothing to do with who you are. The simple fact is you are going around adding (or updating) your self-published book to articles. A book that has not undergone any peer review or review by a publisher. Again, per WP:SELFPUBLISH and WP:REFSPAM, the book is not allowed. Bgwhite (talk) 07:31, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I feel like you are splitting hairs and forcing me to defend myself - a process I find distasteful. Well, the WP guidelines on self-published books includes this sentence: " Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." I hate to be in the position where I am forced to "blow my own horn," but I do think it is fair to say that I am widely considered an "established expert on the subject matter." and my book is considered a key reference in the field by most, if not all, serious students of this field of history.
And I reject your remark that "Amazon reviews mean nothing." These six 5-star reviews (and I have received nothing less than a five-star review) were all totally unsolicited by people I did not know - some of them professionals in the field. Saying they "mean nothing" is really unfairly attacking their reputations. They wouldn't have written such favourable reviews if they didn't mean what they said and were willing to say it in public.
I have shown above that my work has been widely accepted in the field as authoritative - otherwise it would not be quoted and referenced in so many peer-reviewed articles and books (actually there have been dozens if not scores of such quotes and references), nor would leading academics and authors have praised it so highly. I think that, if you don't agree with me, we should ask for some mediation here. Can you suggest what the appropriate forum would be to discuss the situation further and seek an independent judgement? Sincerely, John Hill (talk) 11:52, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
John Hill You have shown nothing. You have shown nothing that the work has been accepted or that your are an established expert. All you have shown me is your word and an Amazon link. Amazon review are not reliable... same goes for IMDb and other sites where user input is accepted. There is absolutely no way you can be partial. This is why Conflict Of Interest guidelines have been put in place. Bgwhite (talk) 19:47, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Can we stop this bullshit about being the nth person to do sth?
Does the signpost have nothing more interesting to write about? "Congratulations, you're the 1 millionth person to cross this bridge, how do you feel? Here's your free cinema ticket, have a good day." Samsara05:22, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Samsara Wake up on the wrong side of the bed? If you read the signpost or the quote I left, it did not say Congratulations or anything else like that. The Signpost just said the 5,000 FP milestone was passed and that is worth writing about. I added the congratulations. I added the thank you to Hafs for their work. If you don't like one editor telling another editor that they are appreciated, please keep it to yourself. Bgwhite (talk) 05:32, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In this edit, the "niger" and "mali" are not English and are correct. Before saving, please look through the edit to see if there are such instances where it does not fix anything, especially on language articles. --JorisvS (talk) 09:29, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hello - I made many changes/updates to the Merkle Inc. Wikipedia page, in good faith trying to bring the information current. It had not been updated in several years. I am Marketing Communications Director for the company, and we have had numerous leadership changes, revenue growth, employee increases, acquisitions, awards, etc., even our positioning as a CRM agency has shifted. All of these changes needed to be added to our profile. I made every effort to follow rules against promotional language, etc.
I tried my best to figure out the coding and everything seemed to be rendering properly. I am very unfamiliar with the Wiki language, and therefore am not surprised to learn that there are some errors. Unfortunately, I can't identify them. Is there any way you can help me pinpoint the errors so that I can correct them? I am getting pressure from the CEO to make sure this is up to date, and I am winging it here!
Sherrena I've reverted my edit and went thru and cleaned things up. The article needs a severe overhaul. As it stands, it's more of an ad and really doesn't tell about the company. Bgwhite (talk) 00:56, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your help. We will keep working on the article. For context, when my colleague originally set up the page in 2012, our content kept being removed as promotional. We tried to be as factual as possible, avoiding adjectives that might inflate our status. We articulated what we do (which is consulting, data, analytics, technology, creative, and media services in support of performance marketing initiatives for large companies). We use the simplest terms we could manage to describe a relatively complicated business. Everything we wrote, the reviewers said was either promotional or needed a citation. When describing our own business, we didn't have third party sources. It's what we do. That's why we ended up with such a small amount of content about the company - we wasted many hours/days only to see our content taken down. So we decided to focus on a timeline of facts that we can cite sources for. Anyway, I will try again to describe what we do. If you feel it is too promotional, I would welcome input as to which specific claims are unacceptable, so I know what to change. Also, I updated our entire Executive Committee last week, and only 3 members are now showing. Does Wikipedia only allow Presidents and CEOs to be listed? Thanks again! Sherrena (talk) 17:49, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sherrena Things can get confusing around here. Older people leave and newer ones arrive. To one editor it looks ok and to another it is not.
Looking at some of the old reverts, this one I agree should be reverted. There is no need to list the offices along with a map. That is best kept on the company's website. This one I don't understand. It looks just fine.
Somethings don't need to be sourced by a third party. Things about the company... officers, locations and employee numbers are info that comes directly from the company. A third party is getting the same info from the company. WP:SELFSOURCE is the rule on this.
Not every executive needs to be listed in the infobox. You had way too many. Generally, only the Chairman, President and CEO are listed. See Walmart, General Electric, or IBM as examples.
Yes, it's hard for us newbies, because the process can be so subjective. But I'll navigate the best I can. Your feedback is very helpful, and I hope to be able to consult with you again should I have more questions. I'll see about adding back the information you found acceptable (it probably needs to be brought current, which I will do). Thanks again. Sherrena (talk) 19:48, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the response, one more thing that interest me is the letter š . Can we not use it because it's Serbian Latin for (Serbian Cyrillic: ш) not Macedonian Latin for (Macedonian Cyrillic: ш), the Macedonian should be sh. Please see ShaPerdika (talk) 22:53, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Bgwhite, thanks for cleaning. Next time I taking better care for the en dash, hyphen and quotation marks. I have to train this. Regards --Maxim Pouska (talk) 08:20, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I'm new to the editing thing. I'm reaching out to see if you could help me fix the page I started adding information to. the information is creditable. I don't know what I did to make Theresa Hak Kyung Cha page to get all weird. I'm editing the page as a project. All I have to do is add the information and most of it is there. I just don't know how to format the page correctly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Euphemia 1993 (talk • contribs) 13:22, 22 April 2015 (UTC)Euphemia 1993 I did some cleaning up of the article. Should look better. If you need any other help, let me know. Bgwhite (talk) 22:19, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case
You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Review of admin actions and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted in most arbitration pages please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.
Do you have some special knowledge of Austrian Copyright law, or of the details of my recent edits, which makes you think that your actions in reverting substantial improvements to wikipedia was a good idea?
Basically, which specific sort of person are you who thinks reverting changes from a position of massive ignorance is a good idea? I am sorry to be hostile, but I am very annoyed that you would revert edits which the relevant instution approves of. You have no way of knowing that they approved of these edits, but at the same time, you have no way of knowing that they did not, and so, from my point of view your reversion was an act of simple ignorant vandalism.— Preceding unsigned comment added by RichGibson (talk • contribs) 07:00, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
.jpg)
