User talk:Bgwhite

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

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 any profanity or extreme rudeness. If used in any way, it will be erased and your message not read.
Archives


geology of the burgan oil field[edit]

I am jdromero28 bgwhite thank you for the help. Im aware my page is not up to date and that my references are not completely right. This is a project we are doing on my petroleum geology class and is not completed yet. I not very good with wikipedia as you can probably tell. Just wanted to clarify why my page looks like it does. Thanks again.

Tech News: 2016-46[edit]

19:17, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
I wanted to make sure that last item caught your eye. mw:Help:Magic links shows the likely future approach to ISBNs, PMIDs, and RFCs. mw:Requests for comment/Future of magic links is probably the best centralized page for questions. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 19:47, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Northern Ndebele people[edit]

Hi Bgwhite. Thanks for this. However, I am reverting the article back to before Taramandu's inclusion of a section on the language, as an full article exists on the Northers Ndebele language, with links fom the lede and from the inbox. Thanks for your cooperation, regards. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 11:32, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

A new user right for New Page Patrollers[edit]

Hi Bgwhite.

A new user group, New Page Reviewer, has been created in a move to greatly improve the standard of new page patrolling. The user right can be granted by any admin at PERM. It is highly recommended that admins look beyond the simple numerical threshold and satisfy themselves that the candidates have the required skills of communication and an advanced knowledge of notability and deletion. Admins are automatically included in this user right.

It is anticipated that this user right will significantly reduce the work load of admins who patrol the performance of the patrollers. However,due to the complexity of the rollout, some rights may have been accorded that may later need to be withdrawn, so some help will still be needed to some extent when discovering wrongly applied deletion tags or inappropriate pages that escape the attention of less experienced reviewers, and above all, hasty and bitey tagging for maintenance. User warnings are available here but very often a friendly custom message works best.

If you have any questions about this user right, don't hesitate to join us at WT:NPR. (Sent to all admins).MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:47, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Bug report[edit]

BG19bot erroneously removed ref tags here (maybe they could be coded more elegantly though). Cheers. Materialscientist (talk) 07:46, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Materialscientist The program is WPCleaner and bug reports should be reported there. It didn't remove <ref> tags but instead removed <span> tags. I reported the bug this past week (another person did too) via email along with a few other minor bugs. Tomorrow, I'll see if a new version is available before starting up with the program again. Bgwhite (talk) 08:02, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Reserved powers[edit]

I am trying to understand the BG19bot edit in Reserved powers doctrine#composition of the court - the summary "Punctuation goes before References" does not explain the change to the order of 2 references. Tradition in citing legal cases is to put the earliest case first, hence my order "D'Emden"(24 February 1904) "Railway servants" (17 December 1906) "Barger" (26 June 1908) "Union label" (8 August 1908) & "Huddart" (7 June 1909). I thought it might be an attempt to keep the reference numbers in order, but before the bot edit it was 6, 15, 12, 10, 9 & after 6, 15, 12, 9, 10. If I can understand the error you are trying to fix, it will help me see if I can prevent it while keeping the cases in date order. Cheers Find bruce (talk) 07:58, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Find bruce There's like ten different traditions for legal cases around here. One has no named refs. Another has most important ref first... The edit summary also states, "Do general fixes if a problem exists". Reordering refs is part of general fixes. It didn't reorder everything as it doesn't treat {{r}} as a ref. In theory, if one puts comment tags in between the refs, the program won't reorder. I just tested it and worked. Bgwhite (talk) 08:17, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for taking the time to explain. References in numerical order does look neater & I am happy to work on that basis - I just couldn't understand why the bot picked up some & not others. You make a good point about different traditions, especially since I have used at least 3 different footnote styles in that article. Still trying to find the right balance. The sfn template works well for books, but I am not convinced it is the best way for referring to different pages of a case. Find bruce (talk) 09:07, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
Find bruce You are doing better than most. I hate the refs that say "64 F. Supp. 54 (1946)". I don't know what this means. I'm not a Lawyer. Lawyers outside the U.S. might not know. Yours is understandable and with links. Bgwhite (talk) 09:18, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) FYI to Find bruce, if you have an opinion on the numerical reference ordering, this talk page discussion may interest you. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:52, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Question - Content written link an advertisement - AppsFlyer[edit]

Hi - I am trying to update the AppsFlyer page and noticed that you marked it as written like an advertisement. Can you please refer me to a specific section that I could re-write. Rachel123s (talk) 11:26, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Rachel123s I haven't edited the page, but it looks like MrOllie added the advertisement tag. The "Technology" section has the problems. The AppsFlyer has the following features to help support advertisers' decision-making: sentence can be seen as advertising as it talks too much about the product. It can also be re-worded. Contacting MrOllie would be the best routed to take. Bgwhite (talk) 20:24, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Listing articles in biography[edit]

I wasn't very happy to find all Graham Duncan's published articles deleted off his page, which leaves it looking rather thin, and may raise questions about notability. Since I need them to refer to when discussing the various species he wrote about I preserved them elsewhere. However it raises a more general point about what should be included in a botanist's biography, and how. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 12:33, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Michael Goodyear A long listing of journal articles doesn't mean nobility. It also doesn't help the reader, it's just a wall of text. The best way is to describe, in paragraph form, the whats and whys of Duncan's research. References to Duncan's journal articles can then be used as references. Sometimes, it maybe better to use a 3rd party reference than a journal article. If one uses a journal article of Duncan's on a species' pages, it doesn't mean it has to be used on Duncan's page. It's two different topics. Mention the species' in Duncan's article too with a journal reference? Bgwhite (talk) 21:32, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
Well obviously it was not nobility I was trying to establish!, but more an idea of this person's research and evidence to back it up, which has been my approach to date. However I was considering placing the publications in the bibliography and discussing and referencing them in the text. Otherwise nobody has a clue as to why you think they are important. I think that is what you are suggesting. Has this been addressed anywhere as a principle or guide? --Michael Goodyear (talk) 00:20, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
Michael Goodyear It's been 5ish years since I was taught not to include a long list of journal articles. Drmies and DGG both told me the same thing and both are academics. Beyond that, I'm not sure where any discussion took place. I goto both with my questions, so it's better to ask them. They are smarter than me. Bgwhite (talk) 05:26, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, speaking as an academic. I visit botanist pages daily, and the practice is rife. All the same it forms a useful resource. There are doubtless other ways of tackling this. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 15:11, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
On the other hand MOS:WORKS seems to encourage a complete listing of published works.--Michael Goodyear (talk) 16:13, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
Michael Goodyear That MOS only applies to artists. Bgwhite (talk) 22:37, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
Well, lets say the chosen examples are from the arts and humanities. It does not explicitly state either that scientists and other academics are excluded or that it is restricted to the humanities, and nor does MOS anywhere else as far as I can see. This could well be an oversight, but anyway it begs the question of why scientists should be any different. A discussion was initiated in 2011 on the talk page, but appears to have been left unresolved. MOS probably needs tweaking to address that. The other related issue is whether such lists are better handled in a Bibliography which MOS seems to hint at. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 16:23, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
Since I am actually the author of the guidance on writing biographies of botanists, I have modified it to recommend the bulk of the articles go into the Bibliography, with selected articles in the text - preferably those referred to.--Michael Goodyear (talk) 15:06, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
Michael Goodyear Changes look good. I wish more disciplines would have guidance pages. The only change has to do with the infobox. Leave |image_size= blank if one can. Leaving blank allows the photo to be resized to the user's default and depending on what device (laptop/phone) is being used. Bgwhite (talk) 18:34, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
Agreed. Done. Thanks.--Michael Goodyear (talk) 21:11, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Checkwiki rule[edit]

You've twice removed a search link from Green ghost (disambiguation) using AWB, quoting WP:CHECKWIKI rule 90. I explained in an edit summary you were misinterpreting this, but you removed it again the next day with a canned edit summary. Rule 90 is about replacing links that are formatted as external links with wikilinks, but that's not relevant. You're removing a search link that is useful for a disambig page. Please don't remove it again. Fences&Windows 18:07, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

It would seem to me that such a link is imminently self-referential, and if this is indeed a thing valuable to this disambiguation page, it should be added to all disambiguation pages--perhaps as part of {{disambig}}. Why do you think this page needs this exceptional link (regardless of CHECKWIKI)? --Izno (talk) 18:26, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 19 November[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:21, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Tech News: 2016-47[edit]

15:33, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Dear Bgwhite

Among art collectors, art critics and art students "Influences and Stylistic Analysis" and Josignacio's "Plastic Paint Medium technique" are the most frequently asked questions, We believe is necessary to add. We kindly submit it to your profesional consideration. Thank you very much.

Influences and Stylistic Analysis

Since his first days as a creator, Josignacio’s human inner connectedness with colors and the free impulse of the subconscious mind to act to use them on his canvasses have been the lighting guide, his life motive and the key of all his creations. Mostly inspired by music, human emotions and the detailed elements the great work of perpetual validity of nature in front of his eyes. The genetic of his executions generally consists of a careful combination of close-up images of the deep-sea flora and fauna, fossil rocks, outer space and subtly organic materials fantasized by colors. Through color he does mostly express himself. Forms are secondary elements in his paintings in spite of sometimes he uses “fusiform forms” either to encapsulate or unwrap them. He is considered fundamentally an “abstract, semi-abstract or neo-figurative” painter. Nevertheless in some occasions, when he got inspired by a social happening, a personal experience, a philosophical thinking or a reflection that requires some figurative elements in order for him to express it, he have never hesitated in using forms that are perfectly recognizable derived from real life more than his own imagination. He gives himself the freedom of doing whatever comes to his mind in his wide technique’s spectrum and that’s the key of his liberation as a creator. He plays with colors like a child plays with colors, in a conscious manner but following his impulses and feelings. He is most interested in the abstract elements of the form than the form itself; the fact of the matter is that in any painted realistic object, countryside or portrait, you need to put together a great number of abstract sectors to achieve them, and those sectors in his perspective are more interesting than the results. Through his own plastic paint technique he have found the perfect medium to express the vast majority of his ideas. Since his youth the abstract expressionists of the New York School have influenced Josignacio; however, Karel Appel and Wassily Kandinsky have had a special focus. He uses the Jackson Pollock’s dripping technique very often also. In his childhood Josignacio had been more motivated by color than by forms, a distinguishing factor in his artwork that was noted among his peers and family. The only exception to his art was his self-portrait, which he did according to academic style in his 1987 first exhibition, the rest of the paintings were all abstracts. It was from this point of time that his future as an abstract/neo-figurative painter had been decided.

Plastic Paint Medium technique

Plastic Paint Medium is a painting technique created by Artist Josignacio in Havana City, Cuba in 1984; this technique consists of the use of epoxy resins (any of a class of resins derived by polymerization from epoxies: used essentially in adhesives, coatings, and castings) as an "agglutinating medium" and "pigments" as colorants, obtaining as a result of a real plastic finish with a new visual effect. It has said was new because until that moment was almost impossible to obtain such shining, hardens, transparency, and real 3D effects with the conventional known mediums, and no one have had ever used the epoxy painting pigmented to make a whole painting. Epoxy resin was used before as a varnish, to glue stuff or to make some kind of sculptural objects. This versatility put this medium in a stand-alone status. Josignacio’s first completed painting with this medium was a neo figurative depiction of a human face. Plastic Paint Medium it is not water based neither water-soluble, its drying or curing time is approximately six hours, depending on some factors such humidity, temperature or amount of pigment added to mix. Plastic Paint Medium is very resistant to the corrosive effects of weathering and an excellent blocker against the devastating UV's rays. 

 Similar effects can be obtained with newer generation of acrylic paintings for artists developed by Mark Golden that are unique in the ways in which the materials can be used in concert and in combination, making blending and application opportunities endless.

Sincerely, Xucp — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xucp (talkcontribs) 21:58, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Scale of justice 2.svg Hello, Bgwhite. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 21 November[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:17, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

More AWB problems[edit]

Please DON'T set your AWB to replace ".co.uk" with ".com" in google urls (or, I would suggest, any others). This may well lead to the expected page not being reachable. Johnbod (talk) 05:19, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Johnbod Using .com is the correct way. The .com address leads to the default address for the language/country the reader is in. Instead of going to a Spanish, Hungarian or Japanese Google site, the reader goes to their own language. If you are in the UK, the .com address automatically goes to the .co.uk address. The book id is the same on any Google book site. There are no unexpected pages unless you are calling Google a liar about their own site. I will not change. Bgwhite (talk) 05:27, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
This is not true, as publishers allow different sets of pages to be seen on google preview depending on the market it is viewed from. Johnbod (talk) 05:31, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
Johnbod Again not true. Example... I'm coming from a non-UK web address and the preview is only available on the UK site. I still will not see the preview. The license Google has is IP based. The same goes for YouTube, Netflix, Amazon and any other major website. This is why people use VPN services to bypass the restrictions. This is why you see "This video is not available in your country" when you visit some Youtube sites. Bgwhite (talk) 05:40, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
Johnbod From Google, Google Books respects copyright, contract, and other legal restrictions associated with the end user's location. As a result, some users might not be able to access book content from certain countries. For example, certain books are "previewable" only in the United States; we omit such preview links for users in other countries. Therefore, the API results are restricted based on your server or client application's IP address. Bgwhite (talk) 06:13, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
@Johnbod: You may be interested in WP:VPI#Changing google.xxx links to google.com. --Izno (talk) 12:51, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Your edits to Vladislav Surkov[edit]

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vladislav_Surkov&oldid=750678950 and https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vladislav_Surkov&oldid=750678950 . I don't understand why you did this. I was linking to pages within the Template:Lang-ru template to Russian Wikipedia for pages that don't exist on English Wikipedia. I was not using Wikipedia as a reference. Is there some way to do this that won't be caught up in the robot you use to edit Wikipedia ("AWB") ? Or if this is really disallowed can u explain why? Thanks --Psiĥedelisto (talk) 01:11, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Psiĥedelisto As my edit summary states, one doesn't use Wikipedia as an external link. This is what wikilinks are for. I wasn't sure what you were doing on the article. As an example on what to do:
''Close to Zero'' ({{Lang-ru|«[https://ru.wikipedia.org/Околоноля Околоноля]»}})
Should be written as:
''[[:ru:Околоноля Околоноля:Close to Zero]]'' ({{lang|ru|Околоноля Околоноля}})
This way, the book's name is now a wikilink. You should probably use {{lang|ru|...}} template instead. The first time Russian is used or if it's used at the top and away down the page, {{lang-ru}} is correct. As the reader now knows the "funny" lettering is Russian, any use of {{lang-ru}} becomes redundant. But keep doing the {{lang|ru|...}}. This helps computers and blind readers know what language is being used and pronounces it correctly. Bgwhite (talk) 05:27, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you! ツ[edit]

Compass barnstar.png The Guidance Barnstar
Dear Bgwhite, Face-smile.svg

Thank you very much, once again, for the kind and patient assistance you extended to me personally. Thank you also for your contributions to our encyclopedia, and for all that you do in support of your fellow editors.
With kind regards;
Patrick. ツ Pdebee.(talk)(guestbook) 02:31, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Help on issueing warning to IP User?[edit]

Hi Bgwhite,

I have a issue with the policy to warn before requesting block.

I need to send warning messages to a user that is found vandalising articles (user is 137.132.190.171) Can you guide me on how to issue warning for IP address user? It seems to be that directing messages to ip address will not work like that to registered accounts.

Thanks in advance! :)

Lyg 2001 (talk) 06:50, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Lyg 2001 I don't see any vandalism, but then I don't know the articles. You have two options:
  1. Enable Twinkle by going up at the very top of the page to Preferences -> Gadgets -> check the "Twinkle" box.
  2. Just leave them a note. This is probably the best route. Just ask about the edits, that it looks like vandalism to you and could you explain.
Being an IP and they haven't edited for hours, it's best just to let go. If they come back, it will probably be under another IP. If you see them again, give me a yell. Bgwhite (talk) 06:59, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Warning me for Lola Bessis[edit]

Did you check that I created the page, but the copyright infringement was done by other editor?. --Marvellous Spider-Man 17:22, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Your block of IP 124.106.250.251[edit]

Please take a look at my response to a comment in my user talk page section here. Whatever action you do or do not take is entirely up to you. Cheers. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:05, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

SciFan.com[edit]

Can you please explain why the entry for "SciFan.com" is being proposed for deletion? Also, why was "SciFan" redirected to "SciFan.com"? "SciFan" was the original entry. This should be reversed with a redirect of "SciFan.com" to "SciFan" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richardmmulder (talkcontribs) 02:38, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Richardmmulder It looks like SciFan.com was split from SciFan as they were two different things. One being a website and the other a genre. I agree with that reasoning. The article is being deleted for lack of references. There needs to be reliable, independent sources about SciFan.com. If you can provide those, then the article won't be deleted. Note, state trademarks are essentially worthless. It really doesn't mean anything. A federal trademark is a different story. I do think that SciFan should be redirected towards Science fantasy. Scifi is redirected to Science Fiction. There doesn't need to be two articles that are essentially the same thing. Bgwhite (talk) 07:39, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken[edit]

You're no stranger to Beyond My Ken's issues. He has a long history of verbal abuse and gaming the system. Most recently he made a couple of small edits (1, 2) that use his preferred footer style (bold text instead of section headings) instead of MOS:FOOTER, and added a baiting comment to the talk page. He made these edits directly after I mentioned his disruptive and abusive behavior in relation to one of the ArbCom candidates who enables this behavior by dismissing it; this suggests these edits are WP:POINT edits directed at me.

I have previously raised BMK's behavior issues to AN/I, but they were dismissed without action because BMK is "smart enough to read this and get the gist of what people are saying", and worse, BMK's disruptive behavior was dismissed as "a bit of cant" and not a behavior issue. Despite the closing statement, BMK continues to generate disruptive behavior issues. BMK's behavior issues perpetuate both his citation-unsupported content edits and his guideline-unsupported style edits. Thankfully, content disputes can be resolved with citations which BMK has to accept because of policy; however style disputes are "merely" backed by guidelines, not policies, so he chooses to ignore them; and his behavior issues are all but ignored by AN/I, and even when he snaps at an admin (you) nothing seems to happen.

There has to be something that can be done that's more effective than reprimanding him on your talk page. These are severe behavior issues that disrupt editing on Wikipedia. Furry-friend (talk) 15:26, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Furry-friend I once heard this called something like the "Malleus effect", named after user "Malleus Fatuarum"... Somebody so obnoxious, abusive and rife with ownership issues, but next to impossible to reprimand because some admins have his back. This is similar to BMK, except Malleus was much more abusive. The only thing to do is if you think you are right, stand your ground and make sure it is important enough to make a stand. Don't use verbal abuse or lower yourself. Just state your argument and why. BMK will use WP:BRD when reverting an edit (this hasn't been discussed), but often won't acknowledge it when his edit is reversed. When you revert, do the same and mention BRD. If BMK refuses to address your arguments and won't budge or you two are at an impasse, get a third opinion. Bgwhite (talk) 07:23, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Please take a look if possible[edit]

Correct correction?[edit]

Hi, User:Bgwhite new to this but wanted to check on response to speedy deletion due to copyright infringement, could you look at Pablo Castro Estevez (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and remove the speedy deletion tag if corrected as required or should this be requested by someone else? I am not author of original page....Mongepoche (talk) 21:39, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Mongepoche Looks like Diannaa already handled it. Thank you for cleaning it up. Bgwhite (talk) 22:39, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
Bgwhite Yes, I see. Added content seems to address issues of reference and citation, I believe these notices were flagged when original copyright infringement material was posted. Should someone delete template messages or should this be requested? Thanks for your responsiveness. Mongepoche (talk) 05:50, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
Mongepoche The primary source tag could be removed. I'd like to see more references on the awards. Only one is sourced. If those are two books he wrote, then adding ISBN numbers would allow others to look them up. When you add a few more refs, then remove the "needs additional citations" tag. Bgwhite (talk) 06:03, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Tech News: 2016-48[edit]

21:16, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
The CX item is expected to solve the other-wiki's ISBN problem that you asked about some months ago, as well as a problem in which most of the contents of a citation template disappears when you translate an article. If you are feeling cynical today, then that item should read something like, "we are replacing a familiar set of annoyances with an unfamiliar set of bugs of unknown severity".
So please consider this your personal, transferrable invitation to ping me when you find problems. 😉 Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 00:52, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Uno Card Game Edits[edit]

Hi Bgwhite. I am fairly new to Wikipedia editing, but I can tell you are not.  :) You recently edited the Uno Card Game page that I had been editing and removed all my [1] edits where I had placed years in parenthesis and also included some 'special card' info if I knew it. You indicated this were not "references", however I believe having this useful information stored as a reference rather than on the actual page improves readability. Plus, the "reference" is to a point in time -- the point being a year rather than a more specific time.

Also, either one of my edits or one of yours caused the "reference sections" to display in a right hand column starting at the Themed Video Games section. I'm afraid I don't know how to fix this, but right now it does not look very nice.

May I ask you to revert your edits and help me improve the readability of the Uno Card game page? Thanks!

-Unoaddict — Preceding unsigned comment added by UNOaddict (talkcontribs) 02:26, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 1 December[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:26, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank You and request for Help[edit]

@ Bgwhite

Thank you for your edits to Chigali and Household tools of Karnataka. I am a novice and make quite a lot of errors. But I am learning, slowly rather I should say.

I ask for your help to rename the page Household tools of Karnataka to Household tools in Karnataka, please.

Sincerely

--Kireadsalot (talk) 07:04, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

@ Bgwhite

Much obliged for your help. Thanks a lot

--Kireadsalot (talk) 07:27, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for renaming the page[edit]

@ Bgwhite,

Thanks a bunch for the help. Much appreciated.

Regards --Kireadsalot (talk) 07:30, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Need your help, Again![edit]

@ Bgwhite, Hello!

At the risk of being considered stalking or pesterance or being a total ignorant, I seek your help again. I assure you I am not the former. The middle one surely. Latter, to a large extent, may be :]

For the page on Chigali, I had requested for photos from a website by mail. Today I received reply to use the photos. Could you please guide as to, how to go about posting the photos on the page considering permissions? Or should I mail it to some address and they will post it? Yeah, that ignorant! Hope I am not being too interruptive , needy and such others. Hope for your guidance

Regards

--Kireadsalot (talk) 10:25, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Kireadsalot Feel free to bug, cajole, irritate, and just be a general nuisance. If you add evil to the list, you would be my mother-in-law. Don't worry about asking questions or not knowing what to do. I've been here umpteen years and I still don't know all the ins and outs of Wikipedia. The instructions can be found here under the "When permission is confirmed" section. The people at OTRS are few in number and are usually swamped with requests, so it may take a bit to receive a message back. Bgwhite (talk) 21:40, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

@ Bgwhite, Hello!

Amused with 'evil' Mother in law :) There ought to be a page on that :) :). If already there isn't, perhaps one day, may be? :)

Thanks for being so generous. Might I add modest to that?


I shall go about contacting for uploading the photos. I shall continue to seek your help. Thanks a bunch.

--Kireadsalot (talk) 07:41, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 2 December[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:17, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Tick-Tock model/Atom roadmap and Tick-Tock model/main roadmap[edit]

Before renaming articles without leaving a redirect, please check what links to them (nothing now, since the broken articles got reverted). In doubt, maybe ask the author to do so instead of leaving behind *broken* articles. Thanks. -- Pizzahut2 (talk) 22:16, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

  1. ^