User talk:Bgwhite

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 Bot archives discussions after 30 days of inactivity into the latest archive Archive 50 • Archive 51 • Archive 52 • Archive 53 • Archive 54 Archive 55 • Archive 56 •Archive 57 • Archive 58 • Archive 59 Archive 60 • Archive 61 • Archive 62 • Archive 63 • Archive 64 ANI There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. 2016 ATP World Tour Hi, I've reverted part of your edit here as it caused two tables that previously displayed alongside one another to shift above each other - the part of the edit I've undone is the removal of the 'col-break'/'col-end' bits. Looking at the edit summary this seems to be a semi-automated edit? I never really understand what's going on when I see this 'checkwiki' stuff in an edit summary! I'm just trying to ascertain if there was a reason for that bit of the edit that might mean we need to rethink how the page is formatted (is it an accessibility thing?), or if this bit of the edit was an error, or something else? Cheers! Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 14:42, 29 July 2016 (UTC) Super Nintendo Chalmers It was not a semi-automated edit. The edit summary said there was a table problem and do other fixes if needed. I screwed up on replacing the one template with a |-. Bgwhite (talk) 20:40, 29 July 2016 (UTC) OK thanks! --Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 09:14, 1 August 2016 (UTC) Re your message.... ...I replied in my talk page. Also left a message at the user's talk page and did some editing on the article. As I suspected, it's a case of "family history". With so many gen sites, perhaps he should write about it there. Regards, --Maragm (talk) 19:55, 31 July 2016 (UTC) ps...article in es.wiki is protected now, same story. Link fix on Jacob Appelbaum page Thanks, and sorry I mistook you for a bot! Oneidman (talk) 17:10, 1 August 2016 (UTC) Reference errors on 2 August 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 Burang Town page, your edit caused a broken reference name (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) 00:22, 3 August 2016 (UTC) Nomination of ThisisDA for deletion A discussion is taking place as to whether the article ThisisDA is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted. The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ThisisDA until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. for (;;) (talk) 11:19, 3 August 2016 (UTC) Thank you for looking into the page Hi, I noticed that you had looked into the page I had been contributing to for a long time. A couple of days ago, I added some photos of a new park that had been built in our community and had deleted the text in which I stated that the park was "in development" because the park had been completed. When I came back to add another photo, I noticed that all my photos had been taken down for that section and the inaccurate fact that the park was in development had been put back up. An editor just took down my photos and accused me of engaging in an editing war. Nothing could be further from the truth. I have tried to reach out to that editor and to develop and understanding of what I had done wrong, so I could improve the page. But he has chosen not to communicate with me. I was planning to make a special trip to the park to get some better quality photos of the park, but I have put that off. I think it would be good if we could collaborate rather than just deleting other people's work and accusing them waging an editing war. I thought the concept behind Wikipedia was that we people could contribute what they know and provide information and photos. It is my belief that is what made Wikipedia inherently better than an encyclopedia written and edited years ago in a place far away such as New York or London. What do you think I should do? Should I continue to contribute or just give up? Is there anyone I could communicate with at Wikipedia to move forward and improve the page ? Thanks, Dave (talk) 01:10, 4 August 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daveswikiacc (talk • contribs) 01:05, 4 August 2016 (UTC) Daveswikiacc Egads, I'd say they were very rude. You revert once and got yelled at. You were not in an edit war. You are not close to getting banned. However, they do have a point about the photographs. There are way too many photos in the article. Photos of the older buildings are nice, but multiple photos of playgrounds and skate parks are not. The only photos of the parks I'd keep would be the tree house and white house. I'd also keep the old photo of downtown Stanton and 1-2 images of the easement. Any more historical photos or very interesting photos? Bgwhite (talk) 05:07, 4 August 2016 (UTC) Inquiry on edit | Removing signature from article space PROD notice Hello, calling in regard to this edit → https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Oneida_County_Sheriff%27s_Office&type=revision&diff=732874565&oldid=732788312 . I'm not sure if the edit was done by you, personally; by a bot you manage; or by a non-bot program (CheckWiki?); apologies if I'm barking up the wrong tree by posting here. I'm wondering if this isn't an incorrect edit ... I thought it was best practice to sign things like PROD and AfD notices (though not thinks like merge-to or almost all other cleanup/change-related article space hatnotes). Is it correct, under current norms, to not sign PROD postings? Thanks for the update in wiketiquete (likely spelled wrong). (could you use {{ping}} or another bellring if you answer here? Thanks.) --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:21, 4 August 2016 (UTC) Ceyockey A bot must have "bot" in its name. It says "Bgwhite" made the edit, therefore it was a manual edit. A sane, rational edit is a different story. CheckWiki scans for various problems in articles. It caught the article having a username in article space. Per WP:SIGNHERE, signatures do not go in article space. Nowhere at WP:PROD is a signature mentioned. AfD notices are not signed either, but the place where the discussion is taking place is signed. There are ~15 articles a day that contains a signature or a wikilink to user or draft space. There are a few cases where the article is talking about Wikipedia and does have a wikilink to User or Wikipedia space. Jimmy Wales and United States Congressional staff edits to Wikipedia are two cases. Bgwhite (talk) 04:43, 4 August 2016 (UTC) Assembly of European Regions I noticed that you reverted my changes on the wikipedia page for the Assembly of European Regions, including a lot of content I created for the wikipedia though research and that was pending to find sources for. It was done through a bot and it mentioned that it was content copied from our website, which is not accurate. Would it be possible to revert the changes? I am a very new user and learning how to work on Wikipedia, so don't hesitate to explain what I did wrong and how can I do better next time. And what is the solution for the page in question. ---- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaveri miguel (talk • contribs) 06:39, 4 August 2016 (UTC) Kaveri miguel The problem is some of the content was copied from the AER website. I checked it myself. That material can't be added back in. You can add any of the content that wasn't copied, but it would be a really good idea to add sources for it. Another option is to copy the article into your sandbox. You can play around with it and when it it's finished, copy it back to the article. I can help copying it to your sandbox. Bgwhite (talk) 06:54, 4 August 2016 (UTC) I created the content of the history of the organisation using several sources, such as the previous information from the website but also researching on the archives of the AER and the information about the AER on other institutions (especially from the early years).Then this content was also used for the AER website since it was more complete than the previous version. So it is not the wikipedia article who copied the website but the opposite. --Kaveri miguel (talk) 09:23, 4 August 2016 (UTC) Kaveri miguel Let me go over the article and what you've written more closely. If I find some questionable statement, we both can review them. I'll have a look at it my tomorrow. I work on a GMT+10 schedule. Bgwhite (talk) 21:39, 4 August 2016 (UTC) @Kaveri miguel: AER wants section is copied from [1]. Values section is copied from [2] and [3] Services section is copied from [4] and [5] How to become a member of AER? section is copied from [6] Bgwhite Most of the sections in your list I think they were in the page before I started editing it. I agree that there are sections that clearly do not belong to the wikipedia page (such as the how to join the AER) but the history, the list of former presidents, the founding regions, the mission and values are information that help people understand what the organization was created for and what has been its contribution to the construction of the European project. As I said I am here to learn, so can you please help me understand what is the way I can add this information to the page without it being removed becuase it is ust a copy? Is it good enough if I reference the parts that are literal from the AER materials (because you cannot reword things such as missions, values or principles of an organisation)?. Kaveri miguel (talk) 07:11, 11 August 2016 (UTC) Third-party help requested at Freedom City I hate to bother you with something so trivial, but I find myself at the start of an edit war and have no interest in violating policy. Can you please take a look at Talk:Freedom City and the recent edit history, then take any action you feel is appropriate? Or let me know that I am in error and edumacate me real good. Thanks. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:17, 4 August 2016 (UTC) Jonesey95, you are always welcome to ask any questions or leave any comment. My mother-in-law is having a lymph node biopsy this Tuesday. I hoping for the best... a soon-to-be funeral. But, I'm afraid any cancer can't survive in pure evil. Bgwhite (talk) 21:32, 4 August 2016 (UTC) Thanks for that, and good luck to one of you. – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:10, 5 August 2016 (UTC) He looked at it alright. He demanded I not change anything, accused me of disruption and when I asked for explanations, locked the article. Some resolution. Must restore article (talk) 18:20, 7 August 2016 (UTC) Don's indefinite block Hi Bgwhite, Dontreader has shown me what has been done to him. He says that only you can help him at this point because you have always done what you believe is right. Even ArbCom ignored his letter entirely. Can ArbCom entirely ignore a complaint against an administrator written in a civil manner? Don would like to know. But it never should have gotten to that point. Isn't Don right when he says that formal warnings must be based on policy? He insists that DGG's conduct is absolutely indefensible. The warning was not rooted in policy. He also sees these words from BGG during the block as an arbitrary veiled threat: "Nor have you in this appeal avoided mentioning the underlying subject or the names of you opponents." Don says that there's nothing in the policies and guidelines that forbid merely mentioning an article subject or the names of the editors in a conflict. He also says that although your intentions were certainly the best, he feels that you accidentally undermined his position by claiming that "Your above statement about conspiracy theory and them dodging the question is one of the reasons you got blocked." Don says that his first block occurred before he wrote his conspiracy theory and before he accused another administrator of dodging a question. He strongly believes that his second (indefinite) block was caused by criticizing administrators who he believes were threatening him arbitrarily during the block, such as Drmies, who threatened him with an indefinite block for displaying "incompetence", and not because of violations of the conditions imposed during the warning. Don says that the rules allow him to criticize administrators, and to disagree with their decisions, including the imposition of the block. He says that an administrator cannot warn and block him for one reason, and then block him indefinitely for entirely different reasons. In his final statement, Don agreed to all the terms, despite being essentially arbitrary conditions (not grounded in policy), was gracious towards Rebbing, and was indefinitely blocked anyway, showing that DGG assumed bad faith in claiming that Don was an incorrigible menace to the community. DGG should have given Don an opportunity to show that he was telling the truth instead of assuming that he was lying. After all, DGG could have blocked him later had Don failed to comply with any of the terms, which Don himself said in his final message. DGG's rationale for the indefinite block was as senseless as disproportionate, according to Don. Here's what DGG said: "You are clearly using your talk page in an attempt to evade the conditions you agreed to: you are continuing to discuss the article; you are continuing to comment on the other editors involved in it. This is harassment both of the article subject and of the other editors, and what you have been continuing to write shows that you are unlikely to ever stop this if you remain on WP. Preventing further harassment is a urgent matter with a very high priority, and must be enforced." However, as you know, Don had agreed to all the conditions. Also, notice again that DGG stated above that "you are continuing to discuss the article; you are continuing to comment on the other editors involved in it. This is harassment both of the article subject and of the other editors,". Don knows that nothing in Wikipedia's policies and guidelines prevents him from discussing an article or from merely commenting on other editors. He says DGG cannot invent his own rules like a medieval king. There was no harassment during the block of the article subject, and Don did not harass the other editors either. Don believes that DGG blocked him indefinitely for harassing other administrators, but as pointed out earlier, some of them threatened him arbitrarily, which is much worse than harassment, and Don emphasizes that the reasons for a second (and INDEFINITE) block cannot be changed during the first block. The main thing to consider is that Don agreed to all the terms in his final message, yet he was blocked anyway due to a clear assumption of bad faith by DGG. Don trusts you as much as he trusts close friends, and he urges you to help him. DGG cannot defend his decision, so Don believes you could ask him publicly on his page to either explain his decision or lift the block. There is no point in discussing the matter privately with him because a UTRS reviewing administrator was going to make Don an offer just a few hours after the UTRS appeal, but then he asked DGG for his opinion, and then Don never heard an offer. Therefore, Don believes that pressure should be put on DGG publicly to see if he can defend his actions, as Don knows that DGG's conduct is indefensible, but Don says you have more experience, and you might have other ideas. What matters to Don is that he knows he can trust you with doing what is right. He would have messaged you privately but that tool has been disabled on your page. Thanks in advance from the Netherlands. 82.169.106.93 (talk) 21:43, 4 August 2016 (UTC) Don, the problem is you didn't drop the argument. I even asked you twice, you said you would and then you continued on with your arguments. In my last message, I said At this point, it doesn't matter what you say. If you continue, the only outcome will be you getting blocked for a longer period of time.. Unfortunately, that's what happened. I understand why DGG blocked you. I've been in the same situation once and they were blocked for not dropping the argument. Indefinite block does not mean permanent. The way to get unblocked is straightforward: Take some time off to cool down. "Forget" about this ordeal, DGG and the article. It's easier said than done. Ask to be unblocked and say you've dropped the matter and won't return to that page for awhile. I've had friends who have been blocked for months who came back and are just fine. You will be fine. When you are ready to come back, give me a yell. Bgwhite (talk) 22:31, 5 August 2016 (UTC) Looks like you message was deleted. I swear you had my email. I've opened up my email again. Send me a message and some good links to harp players. Bgwhite (talk) 00:57, 7 August 2016 (UTC) Diacritical marks Dear Bgwhite, I saw you corrected some errors on the Lajos Gadoros page that I submitted yesterday. In one place you corrected "Dusseldorf" to "Düsseldorf," which of course is the correct spelling. But this compels me to wonder whether everything else should be corrected as well. My grandfather Lajos Gádoros was Hungarian, and most Hungarian names, acronyms, and words in general, include some sort of diacritical mark. I made a conscious effort to make the page easy to read for English speakers, but for the sake of accuracy, I did include the proper diacritical marks in the parenthesized comments as well as in the listing of his works, writings and the references themselves. So if Düsseldorf must be spelled with its appropriate diacritical mark, should I then spell every Hungarian word with its appropriate accent? Thanks for your help and contribution! Ferceze (talk) 13:09, 6 August 2016 (UTC) Ferceze Diacritic and accent marks are a minefield. Everybody has their opinion and everybody does it differently. There have been people banned for getting to, um, Nazi like. However, you doing one page is not going to bring any wrath upon you and your house. Dusseldorf -> Düsseldorf was done because that is how it is spelled on Wikipedia, see Düsseldorf. For people, go with how he was spelled everyday or how he was spelled in sources. For example, the tennis player, Martina Navrátilová, has diacritics in her name. But, she is known as Martina Navratilova in the tennis world, so Wikipedia spells her name without diacritics. For Lajos Gádoros, his work was done in Hungary. He was born and lived in Hungary. In the article, the references/exhibits that have web links show them using Lajos Gádoros. Therefore, I would use Lajos Gádoros. I've already moved the article to Lajos Gádoros. Bgwhite (talk) 00:50, 7 August 2016 (UTC) deletion of Aircraft Ground Engineer - WRONGLY done I hereby direct your attention to the following: (Aeronautics) an engineer qualified and licensed to certify the airworthiness of an aircraft. Official name: licensed aircraft engineer CanadianAME (talk) 15:03, 8 August 2016 (UTC) User:CanadianAME I did not delete the article. There was no article to delete. There was a redirect that pointed to an article in your user space. This is not allowed and can be speedily deleted. You moved the page to User talk:User talk:CanadianAME/ Aircraft Ground Engineer. Bgwhite (talk) 19:24, 8 August 2016 (UTC) This edit will not have notified CanadianAME (talk · contribs). This one will have done. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:23, 9 August 2016 (UTC) Tech News: 2016-32 Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available. Recent changes In notifications, the icon for Notices has been changed from a speech-bubble icon () to a tray icon () for consistency. The Alerts icon has been redesigned too. The colors have been changed for accessibility. [7] Problems If you use the wikEd gadget, changes you made were not kept when you switched from the wikitext editor to the visual editor while you were editing. This has now been fixed. [8] Changes this week Wikimedia search will now ignore question marks at the end of the sentences or words you use when you search. Until now the question mark was just a wildcard. [9] On Commons, UploadWizard will now be available on mobile, rather than just the old upload form. This should reduce the workload for the community in reviewing images. [10] When you edit with the visual editor a puzzle symbol tells you there is an invisible template in the article. It will now mention the name of the template. [11] The button to read something in another language will move for mobile users. This will happen on 9 August. [12] When someone mentions you and links to your user page you get a notification. You will now get a notification when you mention yourself this way. [13] The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 9 August. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 10 August. It will be on all wikis from 11 August (calendar). A message on Notifications panel will invite users to try Special:Notifications page. [14] Meetings You can join the next meeting with the VisualEditor team. During the meeting, you can tell developers which bugs you think are the most important. The meeting will be on August 9 at 19:00 (UTC). See how to join. Tech news prepared by tech ambassadors and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe. 15:41, 8 August 2016 (UTC) Reference errors on 10 August 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 DBLP page, your edit caused an archiveurl 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) 00:18, 11 August 2016 (UTC) A barnstar for you! The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar thanks for your contributions on wiki Kennwes32 (talk) 08:46, 11 August 2016 (UTC) Mis-deleted reference This removal of reference was a bit careless on your side – whoever put it obviously mis-copied the URL from the wrong browser tab, as it still had a valid website= parameter. Consider yourself minnowed. On the plus side, I tracked the original source and used it to update the article figures. Regards. No such user (talk) 11:53, 12 August 2016 (UTC) Tech News: 2016-33 Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available. Problems Last week Tech News announced you will get a notification when you mention yourself the same way as if someone else had mentioned you. This caused some problems and will happen later instead. [15] Creating and editing links to sections on other pages on the wiki now works again in the visual editor. [16] For some users, cross-wiki notifications haven't been working properly. The count has been wrong when only cross-wiki notifications were present. The cross-wiki bundle has been showing only the names of wikis and not the actual notifications. This will be fixed soon. [17][18] Changes this week The login session when you choose "Keep me logged in" will now last a year. Previously it was 30 days. This will happen on August 16. [19] Some abuse filters will have to be updated during the week. This is because a bug will be fixed. [20] In compact language links, two new kinds of languages will be shown in the shorter language list: Languages that are used in the article's text, and languages where the article has a badge like "featured article" or "good article". [21][22] The visual editor will be available by default for logged-out editors on Wikipedias that use the Arabic script. It is already default for logged-in editors. [23] The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from August 16. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from August 17. It will be on all wikis from August 18 (calendar). Meetings You can join the next meeting with the VisualEditor team. During the meeting, you can tell developers which bugs you think are the most important. The meeting will be on August 16 at 19:00 (UTC). See how to join. Future changes Starting the week of August 22 there will be three software deployment windows. They will be at 13:00, 18:00, and 23:00 UTC. This is to have more times when software of the wikis can be updated and make it easier for developers in different parts of the world. [24] Tech news prepared by tech ambassadors and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe. 19:37, 15 August 2016 (UTC) Reference errors on 16 August Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that some edits performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. They are as follows: On the Pawan Kumar (Indian footballer) page, your edit caused an empty citation error (help). (Fix | Ask for help) On the Allripe page, your edit caused an unsupported parameter error (help). (Fix | Ask for help) Please check these pages and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:19, 17 August 2016 (UTC)