User talk:Bgwhite/Archive 26

Reference Errors on 1 March

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

• On the Mulliners (Birmingham) page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help) and a cite error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

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) 00:32, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Duplicated tags AWB

I feel it more an AWB issue, than a user's one. This edit — I had already added {{ref improve}}. I have seen sometimes users add only 1 ref and remove {{Unreferenced}} template. That's why I prefer {{ref improve}}. Now as ref improve was added, unreferenced was not needed. Can you add this rule? --Tito☸Dutta 14:40, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

When the user added {{unsourced}}, they should have removed {{refimprove}}, which I have now done. GoingBatty (talk) 03:54, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

AWB

Curious, Bgwhite: why did AWB remove the image from the article Streatham portrait? Diff. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:29, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Crisco 1492, it was me and not AWB. I arrived at the page because template programming variables and a broken bracket was detected. I hadn't seen that type of programming before. Not sure why it is there as it looks identical to the way it is done normally in an infobox. Bgwhite (talk) 08:52, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

• It has to do with the FAC nomination. One of the reviewers took issue with the size, so Nikki set up a workaround. However, if it's breaking formatting I guess we'll have to stick with the standard parameters. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:00, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Revert changes to Na Fianna page

Hi there Bgwhite. I was wondering why you reverted my changes to the NA Fianna GAA club page? I am new to Wikipedia editing so please forgive me if I breached any protocols. I am a member of Na Fianna GAA club and wanted to correct some information and add new information. Thanks in advance. Dubsphan (talk) 11:17, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Dubsphan, I arrived at Na Fianna GAA because an edit left your signature in the middle of the article. Nine time out of 10, that means someone is at the page to vandalize it. With the jersey changing colours, a nickname dropped, a stadium changed and then dropping mention of three consecutive titles, it all looked too suspicious, so I did a revert. Bgwhite (talk) 23:16, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Bgwhite, I suppose that might seem suspicious. However, the colours on the page were from 1 season when there was a change for that season only. The edits I made were to reflect the official club colours as stated in our constitution. I have been a member of the club all my life and have never heard us referred to by the nickname the Terriers. The stadium named Silver Park belongs to a different club, Kilmacud Crokes. I deleted that and added a recently acquired facility in Collinstown Lane. The three consecutive titles is incorrect. We did win the Feile Peil na nOg Division One All-Ireland title in 2008. We were the first of three different clubs from Dublin to win the All-Ireland title in consecutive years but have only one the title once ourselves. The other edits were to make the status of notable players more current, add new players with achievements and remove one player that I believe to be spurious edit. Is it ok if I undo your revert? Also if you have any advice regarding my editing I would greatly appreciate it.Dubsphan (talk) 12:27, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Dubsphan, leaving an edit summary would be the most useful thing to do. It will help people understand why you made the changes and not leave them assuming or guessing. Adding references would be extremely helpful too. It is ok to revert me, provided you remove the signature. Bgwhite (talk) 22:32, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Bgwhite, I think I removed the signature. Would you kindly let me know if I have done this correctly please? Dubsphan (talk) 22:42, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Dubsphan, looks good. But, remember the edit summary. Bgwhite (talk) 23:11, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 2 March

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

• On the Tracy McGrady page, your edit caused a wikilink error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

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) 00:36, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Reply

Ok, first off, I was at technical moves anyway and noticed it. The article in questio has only four sources and little info to warrant article creation. Secondly, without going and confronting him in a standoffish manner, I simply stated that I felt he was falling back into his old ways. It's a legitimate concern as he was blocked for this. I feel he's using the guise of the sandbox to create an article, then have a redirect deleted so he gets creation credit. I won't prove further, but that's how I feel. Rusted AutoParts 12:50, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Rusted AutoParts, my main concern is keeping you both on Wikipedia. There is bad blood between you both and I don't want to see it escalate again. To make matters worse, both of you have been blocked and I'm trying to keep both of you clear of your landmines. If you look on this talk page, you will see Assassin is asking me to move articles out of his sandbox and into article space. You will also see me questioning some of the moves. Has Assassin be perfect? No. He has messed up, but he is trying. Bgwhite (talk) 21:46, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

I understand, I really do. I don't aim to be antagonistic, but taking his history into account, I just can't help but feel the way I do. The way he's operating seems like a more acceptable way of taking article credit. It's just me vocalizing, im not starting ANI's or calling him out directly, but I do feel I need to address it. Rusted AutoParts 23:37, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Can I say two words here, Bgwhite? I'll try not to convert it into a fight, I'm allways a calm person, you know that. --Captain Assassin! ^{«T ♦ C ♦ G»} 03:57, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

10 Things I Hate About Life

Please take a look at User:Captain Assassin!/sandbox6 and move it to 10 Things I Hate About Life - Thanks. --Captain Assassin! ^{«T ♦ C ♦ G»} 03:05, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Target page is just a redirect, so removed it first. --Captain Assassin! ^{«T ♦ C ♦ G»} 03:06, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Assassin, you should mention why they took a break in filming. The Variety ref says filming will commence, not that it has. Could you get a ref that does say filming has started. Bgwhite (talk) 07:00, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Check the screendaily ref, it says about commencing the film, so it doesn't matter when its re-shoot began. But I'm trying to find one. --Captain Assassin! ^{«T ♦ C ♦ G»} 16:46, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

What about now, enough sources? --Captain Assassin! ^{«T ♦ C ♦ G»} 17:23, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Assassin, a film that took a break from filming for over a year does need a reference that shooting has restarted. The ones you just added were about the first shoot, not the second. Will need a ref from December 2013 or after. Bgwhite (talk) 22:45, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Check out this, and this, these are refs of re-starting, confirm the published dates. In the THR's ref where a new actor joined, he was not first added in the cast at first shoot but added in the re-shoot, THR also written in the news that film is shooting. And in the 2nd ref, where Wood spotted in Malibu, they didn't shoot there in first time, they are shooting there after re-start, told in the November 2013 ref that they will shoot there. --Captain Assassin! ^{«T ♦ C ♦ G»} 03:46, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

The two refs come from January 2013, so they are of no help. The Variety ref says they will shoot, not they actually have begun shooting. I'm unable to find anything that they have started shooting. It's very weird. There is no news at all. Bgwhite (talk) 05:38, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

But those two refs confirmed the filming is undergoing at locations, one of them have photos from the set. --Captain Assassin! ^{«T ♦ C ♦ G»} 09:59, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Really?

I've been an admin for about seven years, and have previously been one of the most active editors and admins on the project. I'm also an OTRS agent. I don't need to make test pages, and I definitely don't need template messages telling me about it. The page you tagged contains text contributed by a veteran via OTRS; he does not have the Wikipedia skills necessary to make an article and he doesn't get sourcing, but the information is accurate as far as I can tell so the text is there to guide anyone who wants to source it and add it to the article. Guy (Help!) 09:17, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

JzG I don't have a clue who you are. A CSD from Twinkle automatically makes a template message. A Draft article goes into WP:Draftspace or the person's sandbox. If you want the article to be available for future editors, don't leave it where it currently is, but put it on the talk page. There is no way that anyone will look for that page there. The page is so bad that it looked like a test. Also, don't delete CSD tags on article's you created. Bgwhite (talk) 09:33, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

I linked it from the military history wikiproject (and that's why someone came in and formatted it). I did forget to link it from the talk page, I have now done that. The text is way too long for the talk page. As I made clear, I did not "create" this article, I brought the text here from OTRS as a service to someone who is trying to help improve the encyclopaedia. Feel free to move it around, but please stop tagging it for deletion. Your interpretation of the rules should not get in the way of a sincere attempt to improve the encyclopaedia. Guy (Help!) 09:52, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

When you started into name calling, I started not to listen what you have to say. Reverting twice with no response to my above message except only issuing insults is not the way to handle things. Let the system work its way thru and stop the insults. There is also nothing on the Draft page that says anything about being a Veteran. Stop assuming. Bgwhite (talk) 09:57, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Your self-justification is duly noted (hint: tagging this article as a test was also insulting: next time check whether the creator might be, you know, a long-term Wikipedia user, sysop and OTRS agent, rather than some noob). This is plainly not a test page, as I pointed out, so your tagging is blatantly incorrect. Your insistence on the tag is stupid and pointless, and I am done with you. I raised it on WP:ANI so another admin can remove the blatantly incorrect tag you insist I may not remove even though I have pointed out more than once that I am not the actual author of the text. We are done here. Guy (Help!) 10:05, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

JzG. Again, I don't know who you were. I could care less that you work for OTRS. The page had nothing to say it was from OTRS or anything else. Nothing on the talk page. You have assumed alot. But calling me a dick and stupid will get you nowhere. Bgwhite (talk) 10:10, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

That was a valid response first time round. After I made the situation clear, it ceased being a valid response. What part of my response left you convinced that tagging it as a test page was correct? I never had you down as a process-wonk. I am disappointed. Fortunately others have stepped in and fixed my actual error, which was putting it at /Draft rather than Draft: (because I only recently found out that Draft: even exists). Guy (Help!) 10:26, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

I told you about Draftspace, you ignored me. Once you ignored my message, called me dick and reverted, you lost me. What do you not get about that? That is why I left the tag on the page. You should be ashamed of yourself. Bgwhite (talk) 10:54, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Persondata (and Icelandic names eg. Laxness)

Hi, I'm just trying to understand Persondata (and you seem to be an expert) and get this correct. Please revert [1] if I'm right.

You: "Halldór Laxness is not a patronymic name. It is a pen name and are treated as regular names. Nowhere does it say to treat non-patronymic as patrony". I would understand if Wikipedia:Persondata would always use lastname first (but would be redundant to DEFAULTSORT?). WP:SUR: "It is also hard to alphabetize all the biographical articles automatically, since the titles typically begin with the person's first name (although we have DEFAULTSORT for that)." Since we already have DEFAULTSORT we can have "Gunnarsson, Gunnar" there, but "Gunnar Gunnarsson" in persondata. And that is ok/required it seems (and for categories). Icelanders always order by first name first (and then lastname, then middle), regardless if lastname is familyname or patronymic (or matronymic). See also Einar Hjörleifsson Kvaran for a complicated (incorrect?) case.

Just to be sure if Laxness is a family name (not patronymic) would it make any difference? Just getting "pen-name" out of the way, that was true I guess but is also a family-name now (he adopted it and 7-8 people, all relatives I guess have it in Iceland, now adopting your own family name (not pen name is illegal). comp.arch (talk) 14:10, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

See [2]. This applies to categories and persondata (but not DEFAULTSORT)? comp.arch (talk) 14:31, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Do not add material to a MOS page without consensus. Do not add material to a MOS page to win a discussion. In the case of sorting, do not add material without a source.

I'm not understanding the point you are trying to give in your 2nd paragraph. You use quotes without giving your source. Halldór Laxness is not a patronymic name. It is to be treated as a normal name with a given and family name, whether he comes from Iceland or not, it does not matter. Not all people in Iceland have patronymic names. As currently stands, both persondata and DEFAULTSORT are correct for Halldór Laxness. I'm not sure where your quote on categories comes from, so I can't respond. But, Icelandic category exception only covers when the name is patronymic. Bgwhite (talk) 19:14, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Not "trying to win an argument", trying to understand the purpose/difference of Persondata (vs. DEFAULTSORT). It seems treating patronymic Icelandic names differently from other Icelandic names was arbitrary. Regarding [3], as my comment to MOS addition said, the source is the ref already in the article. I'm I misunderstanding? comp.arch (talk) 20:34, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

First quote is from you, second is as I thought I indicated from WP:SUR Wikipedia:Persondata. Please reread, I changed slightly, and then again (rearranged). Maybe its clearer now (and not important-point(?) in paragraph three now). Look at the ref regarding your latest revert. I will not revert you if we are not on the same page. You are welcome to do that if you seem my point. comp.arch (talk) 20:47, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, treating Icelandic names is being done arbitrarily different than other names when it comes sort value. However it is not being done differently when it comes patronymic vs non-patronymic in persondata. You need to separate persondata from sort value as they are two different things. Using WP:SUR has no bearing when it comes to persondata.

Persondata: Patronymic vs non-patronymic is currently how it is done for ALL languages. Patronymic Icelandic names are being treated the same as all other patronymic names. Laxness is a non-patronymic name and it follows non-patronymic rules in persondata, <family-name>, <given-name>. Majority of Scandinavian names were patronymic, but not now. Older Scandinavian patronymic names, current Icelandic, Malaysian, Burmese and Ethiopian names do not have a family name. They follow the same pattern in Persondata as current Icelandic patronymic names do now. Present-day Scandinavian names follow the same standard as all other non-patronymic names.

Sort value: Icelandic patronymic names do follow a different rule than any other patronymic type name system. This might be where you are getting confused. In the Icelandic section of WP:SUR, there is given at the end. The reference is a link to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Iceland#Sort keys for Icelandic names. WP:Iceland decided to follow different rules for DEFAULTSORT and sort value for categories. A non-patronymic Icelandic name follows the same general sort rules as all other non-patronymic names. Patronymic Icelandic names follow rules set forth at WP:Iceland and all other patronymic names follow the same general sort rules.

Bgwhite (talk) 22:29, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

You seem to use this username personally and as a bot. Do you have any stake in this because of some bot-issue or just in general keeping things "correct"?

For persondata: I see no reason to treat patronymic names differently in (except maybe for bots). I think country of origin (at least for Icelandic) should matter and all names from Iceland should be treated the same and would like to see that changed if that is intentionally not the policy. Really it/we should discuss this in the relevant Talk page. I just feel that I'm missing something. Not sure why there is a different treatment in the first place for patronymic, I might be ok with no difference.

Still a little confused about sort (not persondata).. "treating Icelandic names is being done arbitrarily different than other names when it comes sort value", do you mean DEFAULTSORT, as I thought there was not different treatment for any Icelandic name. comp.arch (talk) 10:26, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Be careful, you are getting close to personal attacks. Bot owners often name their bot a name that is similar to their username. It helps identify a person to the bot more easily. Addshore has Addbot. Balifresco has Frescobot

For persondata, that may be your opinion, but why would we treat Icelandic names differently form Burmese or old Scandinavian. There is one rule now for ALL names. It certainly makes it easer.

When you say you demand this and demand that, but don't understand the underlying basics, it makes it hard to communicate. DEFAULTSORT sets the default sort value for categories. Categories can also be set a sort value. When I say "sort value", I mean both. Bgwhite (talk) 18:23, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry for not speak more clearly. Did not mean for any personal attack. I'm sorry if you feel that way. I will stay off your page if you want. Maybe you are not assuming good faith on my part? comp.arch (talk) 12:22, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Help with IP user vandalism

Hi, I am hoping you can suggest a course of action. I have served as an editor on the Eric Leys article. There has been repeated vandalism on this article in the last 30-45 days, and it has been proposed for deletion twice -- once by a user, Mpen320 on 10 Feb 2014, after which I updated and improved the article, and more recently by an IP address user - 128.223.223.227 on 27 February 2014. This IP address, 128.223.223.227, is very similar (and probably the same user because it is on the same network as some prior vandalism within the same time period.

On 12 February 2014, IP user 128.223.223.226 (virtually the same as the above IP that proposed deletion), made several malicious edits (see: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eric_Leys&diff=595064668&oldid=594785069).

On 15 January 2014, IP user 128.223.223.194 (again, a similar IP - University of Oregon), made a malicious edit (see: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eric_Leys&diff=590868820&oldid=558676392).

I worked on a number of different articles intermittently over several years, but am not an expert in how to handle this type of situation. Since you recently did a small edit on this page and appear to be a very experienced, knowledgeable user, I am hoping you can help. Thank you! Jeva178 (talk) 15:47, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Jeva178, putting up a Prod (proposed for deletion) tag isn't vandalism. However, it can only be Proded once, so any other Prod is not valid and should be removed. The IP edits are vandalism, which you correctly reverted. The frequency of the vandalism isn't high enough to warrant any special protection. Pages that get protected usually get vandalized daily. So, at the moment, keep an eye on the article and doing reverts is the only thing to do. Bgwhite (talk) 23:30, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Bgwhite, Thanks for the guidance and explanation - I will keep an eye on it. I appreciate your help. Jeva178 (talk) 13:43, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Reversion of edit "hardware debugging" back to "hardware" "debugging"

Hello,

I'm a bit new to this so please forgive me if I've entered my question in the wrong place.

As I understand it you reverted an edit of mine where I changed "hardware" (keyboard, mouse, monitor etc...) "debugging" (the process of locating and repairing logic errors in computer software/hardware) to "hardware debugging" (the ability of certain computer processors to detect erroneous conditions and interrupt running software on that basis) which is the idea that the article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_80386) is actually referring to.

So I would say that the link I replaced former (two) with much more accurately reflects the meaning and wording of the article and that your reversion, therefore, is incorrect and should be reconsidered.

Thank you for listening. Alancarre (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 11:14, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Alancarre. First off, you left your signature in the article and didn't leave it here. You should sign talk messages, but not sign in articles.

Thank you for your explanation, I now understand what you were trying to do. I've reverted the edit, but made a small change. Instead of [[X86 debug register|hardware debugging]], I put [[X86 debug register|register debugging]]. If you think that is wrong, then feel free to change it. Bgwhite (talk) 19:30, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Bgwhite. Again, let me preemptively apologize if I've incorrectly placed or formatted this response. I am copying (from your response above) what appears to be the correct syntax.

I understand now (hopefully), how the signing of edits is supposed to be done. From my recollections of the few minor edits I've made in the past, I thought the signature only showed up for the person doing the signing. But I wasn't sure. I remember thinking it didn't seem to look right and, well in fact I was recording a tutorial video (about the 80386) at the time I made the edit, so I have the whole thing recorded as it turns out: (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vH2gApmb_pM&t=6m51s). As I explained in the video, that was the closest match I could find as a wiki page even though it is not an exact match for the phrase. What I need to do now is add a correction in that video series so people watching it (there aren't many) don't make the same mistake I did! Alancarre (talk)

Moved page not appearing in search?

Bgwhite I hope you can help me with this. I moved the page for Jimmy Grey to Jimmy Gray (GAA) to correct the misspelling of his surname. However, when I type "Jimmy Gray" into the search box Jimmy Gray (GAA) does not appear in the drop down list of possibilities. Is there something more I should be doing? I have read through the help page for "Moving a page" but can't see what I have done wrong. Thanks again for your help. Dubsphan (talk) 00:08, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Dubsphan, I can't remember the exact time frame, but it takes around 24-hours for it to show up in the search box. Bgwhite (talk) 00:15, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Dubsphan: The index is normally updated once a day (early morning in Western Europe), see Help:Searching#Delay in updating the search index. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:17, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Bgwhite, Redrose64 Thanks guys for your help. Dubsphan (talk) 20:00, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Dappy

I really don't mind too much - honestly - I have better things to think about. But I really don't understand why you reverted my edits on Dappy. All I was doing was bringing the aricle up to date. It said he would be sentenced on Feb 15. I gave (with a reference to The Guardian) what the actual sentence was. Anyway, best wishes. And life is too interesting to worry about Dappy. Ewen B Maclachlan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ewen B Maclachlan (talk • contribs) 20:25, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Ewen B Maclachlan, you removed a perfectly good reference and added <ref>The Guardian, February 15th, 2013</ref> as a reference. Your ref doesn't tell where one can find what you sourced. There are multiple Guardian newspapers. Where in the Guardian is the source found? Was this web only material? Bgwhite (talk) 20:33, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

The Guardian is a national newspaper in the UK. The case - and the sentence - were reported in several other national newspapers. Sentencing took place in February of last year. So, I think you'd agree that the article - which says he is still awaiting sentence - is not exactly up-to-date. I thought I should correct this. But I leave it in your hands. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ewen B Maclachlan (talk • contribs) 23:19, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

cite web etc

hi

Have noted your comments. I was only giving Wikipedia as reference when there was no English version available. For example if for Pierre Whatnot there was no English language entry on Wikipedia then I gave a link to French Wikipedia. Will not do this in future. Weglinde (talk) 08:10, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Have just noticed that you have changed all the offending web citations. This is very much appreciated. Thanks Weglinde (talk) 13:42, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Weglinde, I probably didn't do them all correctly. So you better take a look just in case. Bgwhite (talk) 17:42, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

TOC Changes

While I understand the point of Checkwiki#97, I'm puzzled by the changes being made in support of that. First, it seems that {{TOC right}}'s, for example at Bull (disambiguation), are simply being deleted, rather than simply moving it to the end of the intro section, which would seem to be more a more reasonable, and less intrusive, change. In the case of Bull (disambiguation), that just merely puts the TOC back to the default location immediately before the first section heading. In other cases, for example AN, {{TOC right}} was removed and also inserted a __NOTOC__. Why?

I'm also wondering about the mechanics of the changes. The rate and style suggest bot, but they're not tagged that way. Rwessel (talk) 00:43, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

No matter what I do, someone will not like it. I've already had people change a regular TOC to TOC right or TOC right to TOC. In most cases, I do remove the TOC tag. What I do for disambiguation pages have been evolving. AN was one of the first pages and Bull was one of the last pages I did. Currently, If the disambiguation page is on the semi-long side, I leave a regular TOC in. If it is a shorter disambiguation page, I add a __NOTOC__. If it is "really long", I keep it on the right side. In GUI design, one does not place something where a user does not expect it. For example, on Windows, open/save option is usually under file in the upper-right. WP:TOC says to use "... {{TOC right}} or {{TOC left}} when it is beneficial to the layout of the article, or when the default TOC gets in the way of other elements". There is no benefit to a semi-long disambiguation page when the TOC is to the right as people don't normally see it. As for the rate of change, I use AWB, which automatically loads the articles and finds the TOC for me. I've got 300,000 edits, so I work faster than a "regular" person. I do preview every article except for very small articles. Disambiguation pages load and save fast. Bgwhite (talk) 01:49, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I've noticed you changing a lot of the car articles that I watch. On many of them the __TOC__{{clear}} serves no useful purpose any more and I don't worry about it. But many of them have short intros and a long infobox. By removing __TOC__{{clear}} the infobox intrudes into the first section and pushes down the infobox or photo that was at the top of that section. This makes it hard to see which infobox or photo belongs with which section.

I think that you have interpreted rule #97 slightly wrong. WP:LEAD#Elements of the lead says "Users of screen readers expect the table of contents to follow the introductory text; they will also miss any text placed between the TOC and the first heading." It seems that you have interpreted it as not allowing any wiki markup at all between the last paragraph of the intro and the first section header. I believe it only applies to the final rendered text that is shown on the user's screen or read allowed by screen reader software and that wiki markup is still okay. The use of __TOC__{{clear}} leaves the first section header as the first thing straight after the contents table, so it shouldn't affect any screen readers and makes things much nicer for sighted readers - and much, much nicer for readers with marginal sight.  Stepho  talk  05:49, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Stepho-wrs, I haven't a clue what you are saying without examples. More importantly, I'm wigging it. I will not change every ToC to meet everybody's whims. I have been yelled at for doing one thing and yelled for not doing the same thing. I've been yelled at for adding too much space and yelled at for adding too little. Bgwhite (talk) 05:59, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Rest assured that I am not shouting - only trying to find common ground in a calm manner. Your efforts are much appreciated.

An example of my complaint is at the Starlet article: yours, mine.

You can see in your version where the top infobox intrudes into the "40 series" section and pushes the "40 series" infobox down. I believe that my version is at least as easy for a screen reader to decode and a lot easier for a sighted (or semi-sighted) reader to read.  Stepho  talk  08:23, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Stepho-wrs, sorry. I'm getting cranky with all the reverts and the other "fun" stuff. The anchors usually go inside the section heading, which is why I moved them down. It also removes the article from reappearing on the list without having to whitelist the article. I forgot to combine the multiple anchors into one. Your way does look better and I have no problem with people making adjustments as long as they follow the rules. Oh, I think you have one of the best signatures around. It stands out, is clean an not hard to read. Bgwhite (talk) 08:56, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

In good faith, I recommend you review this thoughtful article and wp:WikiProject Editor Retention before wantonly deleting any more TOC flags. WP loses editors every day because a well-meaning denizen gets some bee-in-bonnet about some perceived rule and starts hacking hundreds of articles. Gergyl (talk) 03:24, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Sahara India Parivar

Hi there,

Could you please explain, why I have been given a no edit warning ? The user Shivani.malik had deleted the particular passage without giving any reason, which I reinstated.

Two Company Directors along with Sahara India Founder have been sent to Tihar Jail by the Supreme Court of India. This factual information should be available for the readers of Wikipedia.

Best, Champi4mcollege — Preceding unsigned comment added by Champi4mcollege (talk • contribs) 09:31, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Champi4mcollege User Shivani.malik will come by and revert your change. All thru February and March, people will make a change and another person will revert. I'm not saying you have or have not done anything wrong. Instead of everybody reverting, things should be discussed first. Bgwhite (talk) 09:37, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply, it is obvious that there are users with COI with Sahara India. I do not think such all out blanking of any information contrary to Sahara's wikipedia advertisement is any good for the purposes of an encyclopaedia, in the long run. Best, C — Preceding unsigned comment added by Champi4mcollege (talk • contribs) 09:57, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

"There must be no content between TOC and first headline"

"There must be no content between TOC and first headline per WP:TOC and WP:LEAD." say your edit summaries - from where is this language taken? The words "there must be no" do not appear in either WP:TOC or WP:LEAD, and the majory of our guidelines" use more conditions language, such as "there should be no..." or "it is best if..."

So, where does the absolutism of "there must be no" come from? BMK (talk) 01:26, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

BMK, per WP:LEAD, "Users of screen readers expect the table of contents to follow the introductory text; they will also miss any text placed between the TOC and the first heading." Users of screen readers will miss everything between the ToC and the first section. Tell me when there is any reason to deny a reader part of an article? From WP:5P #1 and #3 says never. Bgwhite (talk) 01:47, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

The language of the guidelines is clearly not absolutist, and I think it would be better if your edit summary was not absolutist either, and made it clesr that your edit is mot enforcing a mandatory condition, but an ideal one. BMK (talk) 02:23, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

BMK, doesn't matter what I put, people will still complain. At the other end of the spectrum, I've had people say MOS is only guideline and they don't have to follow it. An admin saying there is no consensus, so he didn't have to follow it. My favourite, one arguing with Graham and doing a Jim Carrey impression from Dumb and Dumber... So you're telling me there's a chance a screen reader user will read it. Do you really think if I said ideal and not no that you wouldn't have reverted and ended up here? I'm damned if I do and damned if I don't. Bgwhite (talk) 05:30, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Actually, although there's no reason you would necessarily believe this, the softer, more appropriate language would definitely make a difference to how I respond to the edit, yes. You are an admin, and if you come by and say "this must happen", there's the implicit threat there that you're prepared to back up that "must" with admin action. (And, yes, incidentally, MOS is a guideline and it is not mandatory. If it were mandatory, it would be a policy - that's the basic difference between the two. So if you want MOS to be mandatory, start a movement to have the whole thing declared to be policy -- but I wouldn't hold my breath wating for it to happen. If you have any other understanding of MOS, you are mistaken.) BMK (talk) 05:41, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

BMK, I'm not questioning MOS and you are misunderstanding. Person said he didn't have to follow MOS, end of story, no debate. Accessibility didn't matter. Just pointing out this is a case where saying "guideline, I don't have to follow" doesn't hold water. Thanks for your first sentence. I does make sense now. How about... No content between TOC and first headline per WP:TOC and WP:LEAD. Accessibility for users of screen readers. Bgwhite (talk) 06:06, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Notwithstanding MOS being a guideline rather than mandatory, MOS states "should" and not "must" with regard to the placement of the floating TOC and screen readers; "should" does not mean "must", so it is somewhat untrue for an administrator to state "must" in edit summaries. "If floating the TOC, it should be placed at the end of the lead section of the text, before the first section heading. Users of screen readers do not expect any text between the TOC and the first heading, and having no text above the TOC is confusing." The only reason users of screen readers would not expect any content between the TOC and the first heading is because a handful of editors want it that way and have been editing Wikipedia to that end. Screen readers read content between the TOC and the first heading or wherever in the lead unless specifically configured not to while reading Wikipedia articles. Place the URL of a Wikipedia article with the TOC in a non standard position in the location box of WebAnywhere and test it, wa.cs.washington.edu. So, all users of screen readers are not being denied reading full Wikipedia article text due to TOC placement, as asserted. The fact that an editor has been changing the location of countless TOC over an extended period of time is an indication that no screen reader user can make the assumption that the TOC is in a standard position in every Wikipedia article. There should be a concern with how Wikipedia articles appear to the overwhelming majority of users who do not use screen readers, since having an article appear to be poorly formatted at the beginning of the article due to placement of the TOC to satisfy certain editors' desire for screenreader users to be able to make an assumption with regard to TOC placement in Wikipedia, in a sense makes certain Wikipedia articles seem amateur and lessens the trust readers place in the Wikipedia brand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.61.77.223 (talk) 08:44, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) It's been argued too much, and I'm getting tired of the bickering, so will leave with the comment that I'm with Bgwhite on this matter. I will now unwatch this page. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:13, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Bgwhite, some unsolicited advice. You might consider laying out this position, along with your responses to arguments against it, on a User subpage and linking to it from your edit summary, since you seem to be repeating the same discussion with multiple editors. I applaud your willingness to repeat yourself, but it might be more productive to point people to a fully-developed essay that lays out the accessibility issues involved in this TOC modification.

Free advice from a talk page stalker. Take it or leave it; you get what you pay for. Keep up the bold work. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:59, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Jonesey95, good idea. The next dump will tell me how many articles left todo. I'm guessing around 2,000 left, so alot more talk message to go. Thank you for volunteering to help me out ;) Bgwhite (talk) 06:14, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Alternative outlets

How would you fix the TOC situation there? It's not exactly ideal at the moment. Graham87 02:19, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Graham87, I moved the TOC above the first section heading. Is it better now? Should I also scan thru Wikipedia space? Bgwhite (talk) 05:44, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, that's better. Yes, that'd be a good idea. Graham87 06:50, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

While I remember: TOC placement like that at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion isn't a problem because there are headings before the TOC. I know this was also true of the alternative outlets page, that that one was just plain weird. Graham87 12:29, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Ralph Dfouni AWB

Dear BGwhite... I am a total novice in terms of wikipedia and am trying to put a page about Ralph Dfouni, however I think your refer to AWB which is something that encouraged to delete the references. What is this exactly. The page is still under development and should evolve a bit more in the coming days. HOpe it is OK to keep the ref until they are organised a bit more. Many thanks...iucncanada (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 19:02, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

iucncanada, AWB is just a tool to clean pages. It doesn't remove references. I manually removed them.

I started looking at the refs and they were not mentioning Dfouni. The refs need to mention Dfouni won an award or was connected to the website/film.

It would be a good idea to attach a ref to the movie or award. Having them all at the end in a pile makes it hard to know what the ref was sourcing. Could you add a couple of good refs and make mention where they belong on the page. Then leave a message here and I'll format the refs so you can see how it is done. Bgwhite (talk) 19:23, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Bgwhite

Many thanks... Just asked Ralph to get me those good ref and a text for his wiki... let us hope for the best... Still discovering Wiki... people like you help us a lot...iucncanada (talk)

Dear BGwhite, I think I managed to update the reference...Need to work on the rest... Hope this is OK... Is there anything else I should do? Merci... iucncanada (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 14:50, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, Bgwhite. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 15:34, 6 March 2014 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Tito☸Dutta 15:34, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Joint biographies and Living people

In case you aren't watching, here's a courtesy paste from atop my Contributions list.

7 March 2014

   (diff | hist) . . Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Persondata‎; 04:37 . . (+461)‎ . . ‎P64 (talk | contribs)‎ (→‎Joint biographies and Living people: new section)
   (diff | hist) . . Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography‎; 04:28 . . (+1,539)‎ . . ‎P64 (talk | contribs)‎ (→‎Joint biographies and Living people: new section)

This hour I noticed that you are one person from whom I learned right or wrong ;-) at Brothers Hildebrandt summer 2012.

I'm on the east coast of North America and shouldn't be *here* now. Good night. --P64 (talk) 04:44, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

A Hologram for the King (film)

Hello B, please move this User:Captain Assassin!/sandbox13 to A Hologram for the King (film) - thanks. --Captain Assassin! ^{«T ♦ C ♦ G»} 07:06, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

C&K Kitt

Your continuing hypocrisy and pandering is noted. I never agreed not to edit that page. What I did was choose to go along with a compromise where we discussed any thoughts on changes with Lesser Cartographies and Lesser would make the changes. You are the one that violated that understanding. The plan was not for Dontreader to come to you and for you to make changes. Your continued pandering to him is not helping. duffbeerforme (talk) 23:06, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

I withdraw my accusation of hypocrisy. It was made in a moment of frustration and was not justified. I should have calmly explained my objections to the situation without resorting to a personal slight. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:08, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Changes made to Harp Twins article

Hi Bgwhite. I see that Duff has made changes to the Kitt article. I, on the other hand, have respected our agreement. Besides, those links that he took out were intended merely to support content. Besides, I have edited several articles of musicians over the past months and I have noticed that they commonly use similar "shops" for that purpose of providing sources for content, including iTunes and Amazon, among others. And I'm not just talking about rather unknown artists; I'm talking about Lady Gaga and Katy Perry, among others. Notice, however, that those big names are heavily defended by many contributors, including very experienced ones, unlike the Kitt page, so I wonder if that's why Duff doesn't do anything about them. Until I see Duff waging war against Katy Perry or Lady Gaga pages, among others, I don't see how he can justify the claim that the Kitt article is promoting sales. Anyway, it's up to you to decide what to do with Duff, who violated our agreement, and hopefully you will revert his edit. Thanks for your time and immense patience. Dontreader (talk) 10:41, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Yea, I saw that on my watchlist and started shaking my head. Will talk a look. Bgwhite (talk) 17:43, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello Bgwhite. First of all, I hope you saw on the Kitt talkpage that I gave GoingBatty the information he requested (sometimes that ping thing doesn't work for me). And this Katy Perry song article that I made several contributions to in October has three Amazon links, yet the article is listed as a "Music good article". The Good Article status was approved by an administrator. I honestly cannot find a good reason for Duff's continued efforts to take out the CD Baby links from the Kitt article. Regards, Dontreader (talk) 00:28, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Dontreader, Duff went to Lesser saying how evil I am and to revert the changes. I'm leaving it in Lesser's hands for now.

Not sure what you mean by "Good Article". Do you mean WP:GA. If so, the article has to go thru an intense review. Kitt articles hasn't done the review. I've gotten articles to "Good Article" status and the Kitt article is not anywhere near that. I don't think it ever could be because of the lack of material about them. Bgwhite (talk) 00:57, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

You are very evil indeed, Bgwhite, but look, please, what I meant was that the Katy Perry song article is a "Good Article" (yes, we are talking about the same thing). AND, it has 3 links to Amazon. I saw the intense review, carried out by an administrator. You can find it very easily, I'm sure. Notice that promotional issues were discussed during the process, but the "shop" links were never a problem. I'm not saying that the Kitt article deserves Good Article status now or any time soon, but my point is why is someone trying to take out "shop" links from the Kitt article as if they are against the rules, when they are present in a Good Article? Duff is misguided. Until Duff and Lesser can successfully have the Amazon links removed from that Good Article (good luck with that), they have NO RIGHT to remove the CD Baby links from the Kitt article. I hope you see my point. Thanks again for your patience. Dontreader (talk) 02:06, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Dontreader, they do have a right to remove the link. Anybody on Wikipedia can remove any links.

I hate the "link spam" as much as Duff, but I'm just resigned to it on music articles. I'd love to remove all the Amazon and iTunes links. I do remove Amazon links from books if the ISBN is given. There was studies on how many links there were to Amazon and how much traffic it brought Amazon. Bgwhite (talk) 06:53, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Bgwhite. Well, I understand what you are saying but those shop links can be found even in Featured Articles of music. I actually have gone through the list. If these links are okay for Featured Articles then they must be okay for the Kitt page. Really, I think Duff knows that because someone put him in his place here, so his behavior seems to be deliberately disruptive and confrontational; I believe he should be banned. Dontreader (talk) 07:13, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Bgwhite, I'm sure you're fed up with all of this (as I am - Duff began to mess with the Kitt article exactly a year ago, campaigning for its deletion). You have many other activities to do on Wikipedia and in your real life, so I understand that you would want a break from this issue with the Kitt article. But Lesser is making no sense to me; he showed me what was supposed to be a superior Madonna link, but when I tore it apart he brought up a book. Also, he said that he saw no harm in leaving the article as it was, and then he changed it, doing basically what Duff did, which is to remove links that support content. There are Featured Articles of music with those shop links, so a different standard cannot be applied to the Kitt article. If you don't want to ban Duff, then at least please find another administrator to handle this situation until you can take charge again. An administrator has a reputation to keep. Lesser is simply not being reasonable. Thanks in advance, and really, why is there all this drama with the blessed Kitt page? Is there a shortage of Wikipedia pages or something? Can't Duff help the encyclopedia in other ways and forget about the Kitt page? I'm interested in the page because I'm a fan of those girls, just like many contributors to pages of bands are fans. That makes sense. But it makes no sense for Duff to keep on coming back to cause trouble with the Kitt page, and Lesser has just added fuel to the fire with that new edit. One cannot simply apply a different standard to that article. What's acceptable for a Featured Article is acceptable for that article too, no matter how much we all may dislike shop links. I seem to be having a very long and bizarre nightmare. Dontreader (talk) 08:40, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Dontreader, I completely understand your frustration. I've been there multiple times while editing Wikipedia. I don't know what Duff's motive was for doing the latest edits. However, I do understand why he removed the links as spam. Both Duff and you agreed to have Lesser be the middle man and edit the page. The judge made a ruling. You may not agree with what Lesser did, but you have to abide by it. In the end, this is a small issue compared to the entire article. No wording in the article itself has been removed. Links are still given where a person can learn more, especially the most important link, their homepage. Bgwhite (talk) 19:18, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Bgwhite, thanks for your reply. You made some very good points, so I will not complain about Lesser's recent decision; however, I have not trusted him for a long time. It's not that important that I can't stand his insolent style (which causes me to sound insolent too), but trust is an important thing. Lesser gave Duff what he wanted, so it's no surprise that Duff has apologized to you. Lesser thinks he knows better than you (an administrator) and than GoingBatty (a top contributor). I asked him to remove the shop links from ONE other article (for the sake of fairness, goodwill and transparency), which should be very easy if he is so right and bright, plus that way I would trust him again. Don't forget (among other things) that several months ago Lesser put a "second" personal attack warning on my talkpage, even though the first one was a violation of the rules since Duff had no right to warn me for personal attacks against himself, and Lesser had to know that. Anyway, please continue to monitor the situation. Many thanks... Dontreader (talk) 22:42, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Bgwhite, I told you that I did not trust the judge. Well, now apparently he's wikihounding me. Look. He clearly threw that in there to dissuade other Teahouse hosts from answering my question because he doesn't want to get humiliated. If he was sure that he was right then he wouldn't have written there. Totally inappropriate, I think. All I wanted was an independent answer to a question. Dontreader (talk) 02:57, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Dontreader, I think you are blowing this way out of proportion. Don't ponder over this anymore and walk away. I'm fine with how Lesser handled things. There are bigger things to worry about than two small links that 99% of the people won't click. At the Teahouse, I don't know Cullen all that well, but when I have run into him, he has always been levelheaded. Saying "What I don't want, however, is for fellow Teahouse hosts to give priority to protecting each other's reputation over helping Teahouse guests..." is uncalled for and is lowering yourself to "Duff's level". What you should be doing is getting that poster you promised em.... Bgwhite (talk) 05:55, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Bgwhite, thanks for your advice. Cullen seems to have an amazing reputation, judging by his page. I just regret that Lesser jumped in there. So I got a great reply from Cullen, and then he came back saying that he really didn't know. I would bet 50 of my Harp Twins posters that Lesser sent Cullen an email to make him look better (both of them are hosts there, I think). That's why I got upset. The Teahouse is supposed to be a nice place, without politics, where one can learn things, you know. If a host says, well, others might have a different opinion, then what am I learning? But anyway, yes, I'm blowing this out of proportion for sure. I should get a dog. And I'll send Duff and Lesser the posters if they show me some respect by calling me Mr. DonTreader. Dontreader (talk) 06:36, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

About Canola oil exports

Hi BG. This looks sort of rescuable to me. I'm sure it was written in good faith.
"Canola oil export" would appear to warrant a stand-alone article to me. It is a huge worldwide market.
The problem is the copyvios. The stuff from Canola could be marked as WP:COPYWITHIN, but there is a whole lot that could be rev-del'd as copyright infringements, but as per WP:CFRD, "Best practices for copyrighted text removal can be found at Wikipedia:Copyright problems and should take precedence over this criterion."
Your thoughts? Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 10:24, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Shirt58, I have no doubt that this would make a good stand-alone article. However, everything in the article was copied. I gave links where the Chinese and Indian paragraphs were copied from. To make matters worse, some of the material copied from Canola also has copyright problems. Everything in Canola's "Production and trade" paragraph is copied. The paragraph that starts off as, "The major customers of canola seed are..." comes directly from Advances in Food Biochemistry. Book was published before the paragraph was added to the article. But, there are some chicken or the egg issues with the other paragraphs. Bgwhite (talk) 19:03, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Oh, crumbs. I was aware of the copyright problems with the deleted article. I wasn't aware of the problems with the existing article. Maybe I could have looked further into it.

I do agree with you that it merit a stand-alone article. I'd write it myself, but I don't it would benefit the Wikipedia project in any way to have an tiny well-referenced stub article that would look - in its entirely - something like this:

<poking fun at myself>

Canola oil export^[1] is the export^[2][3] of cooking oil^[4] manufactured from Canola^[5] seeds.^[6] It is important.^[7][8][9] It is world-wide.^[10][11][12]

</poking fun at myself>

Pete aka --Shirt58 (talk) 09:52, 8 March 2014 (UTC)