User talk:Bgwhite

Very sorry our landing on Iwo Jima is a footnote to you. That the facts of our deployment by the Marines are too historically insignificant to mention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcb133aco (talk • contribs) 15:35, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hey BgWhite The information on Front for Independence of Oromia page is based on what they have listed on their website. I don't think I violated any disruptive editing guide lines. Thanks. Sangatoo

I want to get rid of MJ Content edits. These are bullshit.

Please help me. I cannot change it without changing your edits.

Thank you!

Thank you. How careless of me. How do I put all the material back again? I'm not an experienced editor.Stanley savant (talk) 09:07, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Stanley savant I saw your message as I was about to close the laptop and go to bed. I did put the material back (I think) just after your message. I'm back on Wikipedia now and pinging you in case you didn't see the change. Bgwhite (talk) 05:09, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thanks for cleaning up that syntax on Kerbal Space Program. I made that edit with the visual editor and didn't notice the trail of ugly and mangled syntax it was leaving behind like a wood chipper with a hole in it. Also, thanks for fixing the other things like dates; I'm new and I just don't have all that stuff quite down yet. Again, thanks a lot. Hobbes Novakoff (talk) 05:38, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hobbes Novakoff Yea, Visual Editor does have a habit of barfing all over articles. If you are not comfortable editing in text mode, please continue editing with Visual Editor. Give a yell anytime you need some help. Bgwhite (talk) 05:13, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The source editor is nice for complex things like user pages, but I use visual editor most of the time because it's so much nicer to insert wikilinks and citations, and you get immediate feedback on whether or not the reference is valid. Either way, thanks. I'll make sure to give you a shout. Hobbes Novakoff (talk) 16:39, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Can you fix up the Homer Brightman article, please? It's missing a lot of things he worked on such as The Three Caballeros (1944), Melody Time (1948), Cinderella (1950), TV series such as Mr. Magoo, The Dick Tracy Show and The New 3 Stooges. Also, I think it should be listed in chronological order. Dragon'sLair83 (talk) 03:51, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

He also worked on the Bozo the Clown cartoons. Dragon'sLair83 (talk) 03:53, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dragon'sLair83 I hope your user name is in reference to the video game. Great game. I go around and "fix" articles. You can add the info to the article. Bgwhite (talk) 05:21, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi BgWhite. Thanks for the typo corrections on the page. Regarding the navbox, you'vs put that that is not how it is done. I'm looking at it on the mobile and it looks the same. The template is one that exists on many RAF pages (which is where I lifted it from) so what's incorrect about it? Not a complaint, just trying to learn and understand. Hope you have a nice day. Kind regards.The joy of all things (talk) 09:04, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) @The joy of all things: What you did was to copy the content of {{Royal Air Force}} into the article, instead of transcluding it. --Redrose64 (talk) 09:19, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Roger. I knew that and still went ahead and did it anyway! Just take me out, shoot me an sell my bones for glue. Also - Redrose 64 hello; always helping me out, eh? Hope you are having a good Bank Holiday Monday. The joy of all things (talk) 10:16, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

hello BGWhite

the Fancy Free album you deleted is the score to the ballet, conducted by the composer of the ballet, and the content I added includes information on the ballet itself, including the names of the movements, which was previously not mentioned, and a citation to a good published source which could be used by others to expand the content on the ballet.

would you suggest I create a separate page for Bernstein's Fancy Free album? I did not think the album was so significant on its own, being an artifact of the ballet, and the ballet page itself being very underdeveloped could use more content

to my knowledge, pages usually get split when the content becomes overwhelming, not when a new section gets added to it

J Edward Malone (talk) 11:12, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

J Edward Malone The #1 problem is where you placed it, at the very end of the article after the reference section of the ballet section. I didn't look closely enough to see it was the soundtrack. Thank you for calling out my mistake. I looked at other similar articles on what to do... stand-alone or inside the ballet article. Revert my edit and add it back in. Just make sure to move the reference section down. Bgwhite (talk) 17:22, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

good ideas, I've now restored my content with the Reflist moved to the end as you have suggested ... the existing article had some seemingly related sections, called Articles, Reviews, and External Links (kind of an odd structure), so I kept them grouped with the Reflist but following my new section on the album, and the Reflist itself comes last J Edward Malone (talk) 02:47, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, Bgwhite!

I'm looking through the article for Asit Bandopadhyay, for which you added a "neutrality disputed" tag here, but I can't find an explanation for why. I'm trying to clean up the article and the other tagged issues are pretty self-evident, but could you tell me what the neutrality issue was?

Thanks and best wishes, Tigercompanion25 (talk) 15:45, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tigercompanion25 I removed some of the worst phrases, "is a well-known", "Career as a renowned dramatist" and "he has been an eminent and successful writer". There are still similar phrases and other minor issues in the article. Delete the tag if you think it should go. Bgwhite (talk) 17:30, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thank you for your prompt response. I'm going to try to remove the peacock phrases you've pointed out and then I'll remove the neutrality tag, unless anyone objects. Best wishes, Tigercompanion25 (talk) 04:06, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

""Thank you for correcting my "fat finger" error.Stanley savant (talk) 17:46, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

20:09, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm here to learn. How is the article linked below different than what I had in the Highland Arts Theatre entry? Or will the section below also be removed from the Wiki article on Broadway Theatres soon? The linked article is where I got the pattern to follow for my recent theatre entry: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broadway_theatre#Upcoming_productions

For further examples, please see the entries resulting from this search: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=Upcoming+productions&title=Special:Search&go=Go&searchToken=9ra7dux94vb3wtygtyh5ze5ka Ken Heaton (talk) 01:06, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ken Heaton, the rule is WP:CRYSTAL. In Broadway theatre, each upcoming event has a independent reference and individual Broadway plays are notable. If other theatre articles are not meeting this, then the info should be removed. There are 5+ million articles and every edit can't be watched. Bgwhite (talk) 21:49, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bgwhite I have now read the rule WP:CRYSTAL, thank you for bringing that to my attention. So, the problem with including "Upcoming Productions" or "Upcoming Concerts" in an article like Highland Arts Theatre is that these theatrical productions or music concerts are not sufficiently "notable" to be allowed under this rule. OK, I'll take them out while I think this over for a bit.

Ken Heaton Partially about notable events. The article is more about the theatre and not what is upcoming. Listing upcoming events with box office information can be seen as advertising. There are some notable film theatres, especially older ones. Giving a listing of the upcoming films isn't needed or useful. I also see alot of articles that have current or upcoming events from several years ago. Smaller sports team articles also are outdated with player information. There is currently a link in the article about upcoming events. Another link in the external links section would be helpful. Bgwhite (talk) 22:52, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bgwhite, you mentioned above "There is currently a link in the article about upcoming events." What link are you referring to please? You also suggested "Another link in the external links section would be helpful.", what did you have in mind here, a link to the upcoming events page on the Highland Arts Theatre website? Or a link to something else? Thank you for your help with this. I'll go delete the upcoming screenings section now.

Dear Bgwhite: I was puzzled/sorry to see that you'd AWB'd a new section I'd put in the article on 26 April. Was it my inexpert editing? If so, I'd be grateful if some kind person would correct it and reinstate the section. HuPi (talk) 19:51, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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 Comparison of regular expression engines 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) 00:20, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, this is Tnhawkins18. Just wanted to thank you for your feedback on the Wintergirls page I'm working on. I'm pretty new to wikipedia editing and I'm still learning the ropes. I hope to be able to work with you more one editing the page.Tnhawkins18 (talk) 19:59, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I can start doing that once the ones I have made in that fashion are squared away. I'm fairly into the trades (it's not my occupation, I'm just constantly at access to up to date info on these projects), so it's no as if I'll forget about them. Once filming begins I'll undo the redirect. I've just been screwed alot in that department. I make a draft, then once I'm about to move it into the main space, it's already there. My time would then be wasted. So I started the redirect route. Haven't done it in awhile as a vast majority of films are already taken care of. And in general I find it easier to keep track of. Rather than dig through a list of drafts I can just add it into the redirect space. No worries of having redirects deleted or moved, just keeping one singular edit history. Besides, it shouldn't too hard for an editor to notice the redirect has an edit history. When thy search for it or try to move the draft there, there'll be a note saying it already exists. Rusted AutoParts 23:43, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rusted AutoParts I think no matter what route one takes, there will always be the "somebody that got there first" problem. Personally, I just don't get wanting to be first to write the article, but people have always wanted to "plant the flag" throughout history. Just don't go crazy like the Blade Runner ones. Doesn't matter if one notices the edit history, especially a history full of reverts. It will be deleted to make way for a move. You will be screwed again. Bgwhite (talk) 04:47, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't do it for credit or to claim I'm first. I just love writing up pages about films. Getting to dig up information about whichever project may be in the pipeline. And as I said, I'm around film news constantly, so the moment I see an article confirming a film date, the redirect becomes an article. Me getting screwed isnt likely to occur. Seeing as they need to request the redirect be deleted, ill be aware. Rusted AutoParts 05:24, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why would the bot do this, namely changing "hodie" to "ho-die", which breaks the link? Reverted (not by me, I just noticed), with the good changes also reverted, and will probably happen again, no? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:12, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gerda Arendt Well, I am a strange, strange person, so the bot would also be strange. Our paths haven't crossed in awhile. It's nice to see you again.

@Francis Schonken: Actually, the bot didn't do "hodie" to "ho-die". What it did was "hodie" to "hodie", except it removed invisible Unicode characters. It removed invisible U+00AD or soft hyphens. There were alot of them in that wikilink, here's what it looked like [[SurU+00ADrexU+00ADit ChristU+00ADus hoU+00ADdie]]. If you type the wikilink and not copy/paste, it comes out as a red link or what the bot did when it removed the invisible characters.

I'd wager $10 that Francis copy/pasted it from another source. There are some editors that love to put these everywhere, via a template, in "their" articles. If one does a copy/paste from one of these articles, you get invisible Unicode characters along for the ride.

The solution is to create a proper redirect by typing it out and then using that for the wikilink. Francis has already done this. Bgwhite (talk) 07:51, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Learning every day, thank you! Look at my user talk to see how I am, starting with the latest DYKs around Max Reger (2 more already than shown) heading for the centenary of his birth next week, - no time for Bach right now ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:58, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Tx for the $10, I'll give you my bank account number. The problem was here (in other words: I copied the article title from the Wikipedia article title) At that time that was a bluelink, while what the bot changed it to was a redlink. I solved the issue so and so.

While I'm here: please disable the function where your bot rearranges the sequence of footnotes. The sequence of footnotes at Church cantata is generally in the order of appearance of the referenced material (and the order of that material is chronologically). Please don't replace real order by an incorrect semblance of order. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:07, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Francis Schonken Ahhh.... the above still stands. What you did was wikilink -> correct redirect -> Unicode redirect -> article. Article titles cannot have invisible characters. I'll go in and delete the Unicode redirect and make sure everything is ok. Looks like Yngvadottir created the Unicode redirect awhile back.

As for the refs, that is AWB rearranging them and it cannot be turned off. I can't remember if we've been down this road before. Just note that most people would say your's is the incorrect order. In the end it doesn't matter, readers don't know the difference, especially when 99% of all refs are ordered the same. The way AWB does it has been argued to death all over the place. I'm not going down that time sink if I can help it. Bgwhite (talk) 08:35, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• This edit had WP:COSMETICBOT written all over it. There was no substantive change apart from turning a bluelink into a redlink. Can happen. Any bot can produce false positives (or whatever it should be called in this case). Still, please avoid in the future. Sorry if people make small errors (like Yngvadottir did, see above) that they don't "format" these errors in a fashion so that they can easily be parsed by bot. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:04, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Francis Schonken You still do not understand. It removed invisible Unicode characters which CANNOT be in article titles and wikilinks. The redirect was created wrong. If one types out the title, it's a red link. If one copy/pastes, it's a blue link. You wanting to do two wrongs to correct it does not make it right. The correct way is what the bot did and to fix the redirect. Invisible characters cause all sorts of other problems. The bot removing invisible characters has been approved because of the problems the characters cause. 20:37, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. You advised me of an error on my article, and I wanted to make sure I resolved the issue. I am a first time author on Wikipedia, so I am still trying to take it all in and make sure that my article complies with Wikipedia guidelines. My apologies, but I am unclear on what I need to change to comply with your request. When your schedule allows, if you could take a look and offer additional instruction, I would appreciate it. Thank you.FeelTheBernBaby (talk) 04:46, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Tireless Contributor Barnstar

I was visiting your very impressive user page. I would be amiss not to send my admiration and congratulations for your fantastic accomplishments in Wikipedia for over 10 years! I have had the pleasure of contributing for only just over a year, so I might ask you for some survival tips . Warm regards, (I'm French, we're warm; hope it's not embarrassing ) Natalie Desautels …as within, so without 08:25, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Natalie.Desautels, thank you. Mmmmm, what's not to like about a warm Québécoise woman. Ahhhhhhh. It's also nice to know some wonderful Canadians for a change, instead of those rough and crass Maritime idiots like kelapstick. :) If you ever have any questions, just give a yell. After being around so long, I also know who the best psychiatrists are and what mental "retreats" give discounts to Wikipedians. Bgwhite (talk) 01:54, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Amazing; over ten incredibly productive years here and you managed to keep a great sense of humor! Quick, send me the name of that Wikipedian-specialist psychiatrist . I guess the treatment is tailored to the particular stressors one finds here; Combat stress reaction (CSR) when entering Talk page discussions, then Post Traumatic Stress Disorder after the Edit warring; hm, ...makes sense. Anyway, thanks for the good laugh. I love humor and usually I'm the one who dishes out the laughs; but this time I was on the receiving end. Ah, ...Ça fait du bien! (It does one good) . (PS. ...French was almost perfect in 'québécoise'; accents as well as gender are good, adjectives are not capitalized though). kind regards, Natalie Desautels _{…as within, so without} 05:45, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Thanks for the heads up.Acad Ronin (talk) 11:24, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see creating named refs is part of the identified tasks of this bot. I would also dispute that creating named refs – generally as a result of merging identical <ref>'s – is useful, especially where such notes contain short cites. I propose that this not be done. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:08, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

J. Johnson What article?? The bot only creates named refs if there are already named refs in the article. It is an identified task for the bot, it's part of AWB's general fixes. Bgwhite (talk) 21:10, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Specifically, VAN method. Part of the problem is that if anyone adds a single named ref (even if unwarrantedly), that is taken as license to convert all the rest. It is very annoying. It's one thing where full citations are duplicated – an article really should have only one full citation per source, though named refs are not an ideal solution – but rather pointless for short cites. Perhaps you could adjust the bot's behavior in that regard? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:53, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

J. Johnson Well, what is pointless to you is not to others and visa versa. Named refs for "short cites" is common. Multiple duplicate full citations is also common. The "in style" these days is to use {{sfn}} while you use {{Harvnb}}. I still use Harvnb as that was the "in style" when I got started. The sfn template automatically creates "named refs". So, your thinking is in the small minority (law editors don't like it either). What should the cutoff be? Two named refs in an article? Van method had two. Three or four? Smaller articles may only have three or fours refs and all "named refs". The bot is based off of AWB and if you want to see it changed, goto Wikipedia talk:AutoWikiBrowser. Bgwhite (talk) 22:38, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I believe we still have no specified "in-house style". That use of Harv is a minority usage is beside the point (FA and GA articles are also "minority", should we deprecate them?), and if you are not going to respect that than there is no basis for further discussion. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:07, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

J. Johnson I never mentioned "house style" or FA or GA. I didn't mention to get rid of anything. Egads, calm down. You were saying short named citations were pointless as if your opinion is the only correct solution. I'm just showing that you are in a small minority view when it comes to named refs. Most people have different views from you. I also pointed out the "in style" is sfn templates, which automatically uses named refs...thus majority use named refs and don't agree with your pointless comment. You and I (in my GA, FA, FL) use Harvnb, which doesn't automatically use named refs. You changed the style of the article. If you change something from what most people use to that which only a minority use, one should expect problems, such as other editors using named refs. I also said if you want it changed, goto the AWB talk page. The bot is an AWB bot, which I don't program. I was telling you where you should actually bring this up for pete's sake. Yes, this discussion is over as your reading into my comments what you want and are after blood. Bgwhite (talk) 23:49, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Where do you come up with this "are after blood"? I am annoyed at this attitude (not yours alone) of automatic conversion. But no thank you, I'm not ready for another CITEVAR battle, so that's the end of it. For now. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:33, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

23:22, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

I see you've reverted a bunch of edits to Underwater Demolition Team. I don't have a problem with that, but I'm curious about why it was done. (I can't figure it out just by looking at the changes.) Just curious. Lou Sander (talk) 00:48, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lou Sander The references added were all the same, <ref/''More Than Scuttlebutt''> With it being formatted wrong, it was showing up as straight text in the article. It was also never defined as a reference. There were other errors, such as changing NCDU into NCD Units in some place, but not others (It shouldn't have been changed). They did fix some errors. If you think you can fix things, go ahead and revert. Always feel free to ask questions Bgwhite (talk) 05:00, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Got it! Thanks! Lou Sander (talk) 13:13, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I am seen your edits on Lepsius list of pyramids, which have removed the background color #ffe39b of the first line of the table. Could you possibly put the background color back without using the messy (and deprecated) html code I used to do so? Thank you! Iry-Hor (talk) 07:00, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi BG, I see you deleted my user name from the reference at this article and can understand why user names wouldn't normally be part of an article. The reason I inserted it in this case was because I was the translator of the original article which is in medieval German. So what's the convention for indicating that a Wiki editor translated the document? --Bermicourt (talk) 08:13, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bermicourt It's the same as any other edit... the edit history log and edit summary. All edits change something in an article and are "equal". Medieval German? Egads. I have a hard enough time with Modern English and would be impossible for me to read medieval English. I once did some stuff with 17th century German christening records... trying to decipher s vs f still haunts me. Bgwhite (talk) 09:08, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'll take the "tr." out then. --Bermicourt (talk) 09:12, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bgwhite, your bot has corrected my article several times. What it does is to alter a direct quotation. Since the passage has been quoted verbatim, it should not be altered, corrected, changed, or otherwise revised, regardless of any mistake. I have to keep on correcting the "correction" (which in the first place is not concerned with a mistake at all, but rather a personal style preference). Please rectify.Oliver Puertogallera (talk) 10:55, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oliver Puertogallera please provide diff. Moreover, please do not use expressions such as "my article" which refer to WP:OWNERSHIP. -- Magioladitis (talk) 11:02, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oliver Puertogallera I found the problem and fixed it. -- Magioladitis (talk) 11:08, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to bring this up here as you've generally seen me and CaptainAssassin! interact in an either heated or other debate and I just want it known I'm not theorizing this based off any prior interactions. I've noticed a new editor pop up recently, a user named Tammydemo. And I just couldn't help but notice that this editor edits predominantly any and all artic!es CaptainAssassin! had involvements with as well tend to edit in a similar fashion as he does. If I'm wrong I'm wrong, I just wanted to see if there's any worth to this concern, if you feel similarly, and if a sock puppet investigation should be commenced. Rusted AutoParts 04:00, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rusted AutoParts Tammydemo has been around since November 2015. For the most part, the accounts are editing at separate times, but some edits come close to overlapping. Tammydemo is obviously not a new editor. They both edit films and alot of times, the same article. They are curiously similar.

To have a sock puppet investigation, one needs to show the two accounts are being abusive or are editing for improper purposes. In Tammydemo's edits, I didn't see any talk messages, discussions or reverts. I didn't review every edit, so it would helpful if you know of such edits. I didn't see any improper edits on Tammydemo's part. If there were improper edits going on between the two and with Tammydemo's current edit history being similar to Assassin, I would start an SPI. Bgwhite (talk) 04:54, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In terms of using for abusive or disruptive purposes, I've never taken Assassin! to conduct in that sort of thing. At the very least he is overzealous and was very quick to make articles for films not even announced yet. But this to me, should it be sockpuppetry, is to likely bolster edit history. Tammydemo was active everyday that Assassin! was. And exclusively edits the same draft spaces Assassin! worked on, created redirects for films yet to be developed (which are also in draftspace, created by Assassin!). It might not be a disruptive purpose, but it holds some kind of sneaky undertone to it. Like if one is his work account, and the other is for at home use. But if I'm wrong I'm wrong, but having dealt with sockpuppets before, I'm always fairly alarmed when editors hold very similar edit histories or styles. Rusted AutoParts 05:14, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rusted AutoParts I agree with you that their edits are similar and I'm not disputing, but agreeing on what you have said about that. They key here is "improper". I don't see bolstering edit history here. If anything, doing edits from a 2nd account removes edit count from one's main account. There are many reasons to have two separate accounts such as one for work, one for home or one from a secure network, one from an insecure network. There's nothing sneaky in that. You may not like it, but at the moment there is nothing that can be done. Until they both do an improper edit, such as vote on the same side of an Afd or agree with each other in a discussion, it's no harm no foul. Bgwhite (talk) 05:42, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your input. Felt i should seek it out before I launched into a heated investigation or something. I don't feel editors should have two accounts unless they make it known, but as you said, nothing is improper in this scenario. I shall drop this now. Rusted AutoParts 05:46, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rusted AutoParts No problem. You are always welcome here. Bgwhite (talk) 05:53, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hahaha, LOL. It's really funny. I saw Favre1fan93 and TriiipleThreat mostly editing the same time and on same topic, so they are the same user? Npamusic is editing same like me and Tammydemo, so he / she is also my sock puppet? Hey Bgwhite, I already told you to keep Rusted away from me, or ask him to leave me alone. If Rusted has some issues then ask me, I've never lied and never will. Good to see you troubling again, Rusted. --Captain Assassin! ^{«T ♦ C ♦ G»} 13:37, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not actually Captain Assassin!, I just happen to be doing similar things that he does, I can promise you, it's a total coincidence, don't even know what sockpuppeting is, I'm just a 23 year old woman who likes movies a lot and is bored with her life. Tammydemo 13:46, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bgwhite, I'm poking my nose in here only because I saw the word "sockpuppet" in the edit by Tammydemo. Your view of what constitutes socking is a bit narrow in my view. Let's assume hypothetically that Tammydemo and CA! are the same person. First, there has to be a legitimate reason for CA! to have an alternative account. Second, as they've done with two alternative accounts, they have to declare it per policy (at both user pages). Third, although the accounts may not be inherently disruptive, i.e., edit-warring or supporting each other's views directly, they are both editing many of the same pages. As CA! correctly says, that in and of itself is not a problem as it happens all the time, but if there's evidence that they're the same person other than just interest overlap, then editing the same pages looks like the individual is trying to avoid scrutiny. I have no opinion on whether there's enough evidence to initiate an SPI, just offering my two cents as to policy.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:58, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Captain Assassin!: I went to Bgwhite first because I didn't want to make a potentially false accusation without the input of someone. I chose Bg as he seemed somewhat familiar with our interactions throughout ther past. And there's a difference in the editors you mentioned. Favre1fan93 and TriiipleThreat edit the same pages as they hold the same interest (Comic books, CM movies, etc.). It wouldn't be unusual at all to see the two editing similar articles. Here, we're dealing with articles in the draftspace and how Tammydemo is exclusively editing drafts you yourself made. I wouldn't have been curious as to whether or not you and them are the same if he was looking through the , but since their November inception, all they've done is sort of tag team with you on your draft articles. They even create drafts and redirects as well, to which you then edit on alongside them too.

Bgwhite and Bbb23: CA! and Tammydemo have both interacted here and are in agreement with one another on this topic, which falls under your stipulation of improper conduct "agree with each other in a discussion". Would you object to me starting a sockpuppet investigation? Rusted AutoParts 15:37, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The only opinion I have on the matter is that the quantum of evidence has to be greater with a long-standing editor like CA!. Otherwise, it's your call.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:38, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bgwhite, Bbb23, Captain Assassin!, Tammydemo: I've opened an investigation. Any inputs can be added in there. Rusted AutoParts 18:22, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Can you protect the Akash Thosar page as a number of socks have been adding copyrighted images (and claiming them as their own) on a daily basis. I have been removing but then a new sock will replace them. Cheers David.moreno72 (talk) 07:07, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

David.moreno72 Do you have a link where the photo can be found. I see several sites, but when I click on them, there is no photo. I'm trying to get the photo removed from commons. Bgwhite (talk) 07:18, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, here is the latest (I've already tagged the previous versions and they have already been deleted)

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Akash_Thosar_Sairat.jpg David.moreno72 (talk) 08:41, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Bgwhite, I am contacting you about the page you edited yesterday on the painting No.61 by Mark Rothko. My only question is why you made the edits you made and what I can do differently next time so I can avoid my mistakes in future edits. Thank you in advance for your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.203.137.242 (talk) 14:55, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Bgwhite, I am contacting you about the page you edited yesterday on the painting No.61 by Mark Rothko. My only question is why you made the edits you made and what I can do differently next time so I can avoid my mistakes in future edits. Thank you in advance for your time. Benesb7 (talk) 14:57, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Benesb7 Don't worry about making mistakes because we all do. Plus, its how we learn.

You added references to Wikipedia. Worse, your reference came right after a wikilink. The ref and the wikilink went to the same spot, so there really is no need for the ref. Wikipedia cannot be used as a reference because Wikipedia is unreliable. Anybody can edit it, just like a forum post or a blog. See WP:CIRC.

The extensive improper material you removed rom there has been added back, by a single purpose editor working only on that company and its executives. I reverted him, but and warned him, but please keep an eye on it. And since we both tend to keep an eye oncompany articles,it wouldn't hurt for both of us to stay mindful of this particular technique of adding material. I try to stay clear of routine protection and spi these days, so please do whatever you think necessary. DGG ( talk ) 23:34, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DGG Another one I shall add to the list. Bgwhite (talk) 06:04, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You wouldn't believe it but our obsessive copyright infringer is back, this time as Subho9999. He has duplicated the Serampore page as Serampore, West Bengal, and of course put on his favourite copyrighted image on it. I have put a CSD on it and the page. Cheers David.moreno72 (talk) 04:57, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

David.moreno72 Egads. This person needs to be beaten with a clue stick because he obviously doesn't have a clue. Off to block and delete for the umpteenth time. Thanks for letting me know, I think. Bgwhite (talk) 05:22, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

David.moreno72 Crap. They uploaded two more photos. One has been deleted before and I put a speedy on it. The other I haven't seen before (photo). The word Hooghly on the photo is for a district in Serampore. Guess who edited Hooghly district and had a an image removed? Photo is from India and taken in 2013. One of the billboards is for the film Macho, short for Macho Mustanaa. Can you find the photo? Bgwhite (talk) 05:56, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've done a Google and Tinyeye search and there is nothing. Just delete it anyway citing WP:BANREVERT. Cheers. David.moreno72 (talk) 06:09, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

BG19bot made a recent edit to Inkcap, which I have reverted. No problem with any of that. But I am puzzled by its edit summary, which includes "Discuss this at... ". It seems that it is trying to tell me where I can discuss its edit, but omits the useful bit of the information. Maproom (talk) 07:15, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Maproom. Crap. I forgot to press a button when I started it up. Thank you for telling me as I'm running the bot on more articles now. It should have read:

Remove blank line(s) between list items per WP:LISTGAP to fix an accessibility issue for users of screen readers. Do WP:GENFIXES and cleanup if needed. Discuss this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Accessibility#LISTGAP

Your revert was wrong. Blank lines between list items don't result in anything visually different in the article, but it does cause problems for screen readers. Bgwhite (talk) 07:23, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for fixing the bot.

The blank lines in question result in a noticeably wider spacing when I view the article with Chrome, and with my android smartphone. Maproom (talk) 07:32, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Maproom It doesn't for me in Chrome, Firefox or IE. It shouldn't in any Web Browser with the HTML code generated. Again, please revert. If you disagree, goto the talk page listed above. Bgwhite (talk) 07:40, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The effect I am trying to obtain is three separate lists, one for each of the three genera. My understanding of WP:LISTGAP is that screenreaders will do what I would like them to do with the blank lines. (It is possible that we are seeing the page differently because I have some customised CSS in my user settings. In that case most sighted readers won't be aware of the separation into three lists. I'll do some tests.) Maproom (talk) 07:58, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Maproom If you want separate lists, then put two blank lines, but a add comment tag saying it is intentional. People add double blank lines, but often want one list. So, I get to fix these by eduguessing if it was intentional or not. According to my wife and mother-in-law, I'm not very good at understanding what one was intending. Bgwhite (talk) 08:05, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the suggestion! According to mine, I'm not good at explaining what it is I want. Maproom (talk) 08:14, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Maproom: Another idea would be to have a list of genera and three sub-lists of species, as in

Also any of the following, many of which are poisonous:

• Genus Coprinus
  • Coprinus alopecius, the distinguished inkcap.
  • Coprinus sterquilinus, the midden inkcap.
• Genus Coprinellus
  • Coprinellus disseminatus, the fairy inkcap, fairies' bonnets, or trooping crumble cap.

etc. --Redrose64 (talk) 08:40, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	this is for your work in India related articles... -- Adamstraw99 (talk) 10:29, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Adamstraw99 Thank you. It does test my patients alot of times. Bgwhite (talk) 04:32, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

16:01, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

On your recent revert, Reason: "This causes problems. ." It may, but now it is back causing the first problem. It's also browser specific it seems. First problem happens in Chrome - A smaller width browser window will force the data-table below all the images. It works in Firebox (sort of...). Perhaps you have a fix for it? How is the version I did broken when you see it? Regards. — 72.234.220.38 (talk) 01:32, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Are you editing the Recent changes page at the moment? Can you help me out a little with two or three questions about editing the threads? Curator GuyCuratorGuy (talk) 06:17, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Something isn't working right:

• Before
• After

-- GreenC 14:01, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's displaying correctly for a definition list nested inside an unordered list. Are you using the semicolon solely to bold the year? If so, please don't, it's an accessibility issue. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:10, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

They were separate lists, separated by a blank line. The bot merged them into a single list thus breaking the rendered layout. I'm not saying separate lists was the best way to do it in this case, seems have evolved somehow over the years. But something to be aware of, blank lines may be intentional and removing them may have unintended consequences. That is the first I have heard not to use semicolons. -- GreenC 18:41, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:BADHEAD also Help:Wikipedia: The Missing Manual/Formatting and illustrating articles/Article sections and tables of contents#Technical solutions for long TOCs (bullet beginning "Don't use semicolons as pseudo-headings"). --Redrose64 (talk) 19:46, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If the change I made is bad for screen readers, I accept that -- I have worked with blind students and accessibility is important. I saw this elsewhere and liked it because it avoids the big scroll down a really long toc, though. I was just wondering if you had any suggestions for toc format that might help with that. I have tried horizonal and it does not work well because of the subcategories. It's not a critical issue but I would like to eventually address it. I am working on moving some of the text to other pages but in lots of cases the back history is not yet present and has to be filled in, and I think we are still going to have almost as many categories when it's all done, just shorter sections. Elinruby (talk) 14:30, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Elinruby, not sure if it is Panama Papers or Panama Papers by country as I fixed both. The "by country" one is probably the best it is going to get. For just Panama Papers:

1. The right side of your version has problems with the images. It pushed the images down below the TOC and not in the section where they are mentioned.
2. If it is on the left side, there is the big scroll you mentioned.
3. I put a limit on the TOC so no countries would show up, which is also a problem.

I don't see a "correct" choice as all have pluses and minuses. The #1 option is my least favourite. Another option is to put the TOC on the right side, but move images from the first several sections over to the left side. Just make sure the TOC is the first thing above the "disclosure" section header. Bgwhite (talk) 21:31, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

alright, I am going to digest that a bit, as I am doing something else right now, but it sounds like you are saying that the issue is not so much toc-right as the way it pushed the images down on the right on Panama Papers ? It did do that, it's true... but Panama Papers by country is also where I saw it, so I am wondering this so novel people will be startled by it? I hadn't seen it elsewhere, although I kind of like it. Elinruby (talk) 22:00, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Elinruby By rule, disambiguation pages have the TOC on the right, John Smith for example. It's common to have the TOC on the right for articles that are long lists and both Panama Paper articles fall into this category. My main issue was the TOC was placed at the very top. Secondary issue was with images being pushed down. Panama Papers by country's TOC can't have a limit on it as it's only a listing of countries. I added a limit on Panama papers' TOC as it had many different sections. Bgwhite (talk) 22:20, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Most of the material that has a person's name as a header will eventually go to that person's page but there will still be many sections if the page is written on a country basis. It might be possible to eventually combine by region, but that is a mere thought at this point. Anyway, leaving this the way you have it for now @Bgwhite: and will discuss before making drastic changes.But I do think there are too many images on the right side anyway, may move some of them at some point for a start. Elinruby (talk) 23:09, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Bgwhite,

FYI

John Wayne as well as Bruce Lee Legacy, acting style and influences are in full display in respective articles.

Please take into consideration the 45 years of Yam Kim-fai and 55 years of Loong Kin Sang already on stage, some more years to come should Loong Kin Sang, the contemporary tier one top-ranked box-office guarantee, choose to.

Yam Kim-fai has been a Legend in Cantonese Opera world for close to a century and opened doors for, at least five generations and counting, actresses now to be male leads on stage. Actresses are still dominating even 25 years after her passing.

Cantonese Opera Film Century Award, 14th Hong Kong Film Awards was an honor awarded to Yam Kim-fai and accepted by Loong Kin Sang on her behalf in 1995.

Google (HK) commemorated the 103th anniversary of Yam Kim-fai's birthday on February 04, 2016 Google Doodle 103rd-birthday Yam Kim-fai Google Doodle shows off 1960's LGBT icon: Cantonese opera legend Yam Kim-fai SCMP updated 04 February, 2016.

Loong Kin Sang is the single successor to her mentor's acting style, a "secret" recipe to success that has never been disclosed beyond the one single room in Yam's former home. Her move since turning 70 in 2014 is more than the world of Cantonese Opera could ever hoped for. Those are historically significant performances you removed in such edit.

Theyear by year tour information I can find in the article of Madonna who was born only in 1958, just two years before Loong Kin Sang first on stage. For a 55-year veteran performer on stage, Loong Kin Sang has only very few of the huge list of awards and achievements listed. Such awards/achievements were listed with references as per Wikipedia requests.

While a pop-singer is receipted world wide and Cantonese opera is mostly a Chinese Art form. I trust the historically significant events listed there are never less important or essential.

"Please help to establish notability by citing..."

[references please]

Revision History of this page Loong Kin Sang

Loong Kin Sang was called a Legend by the Press in 1990 already when she received the award as well as opening door for Cantonese opera tour to Caesars Palace of Las Vegas in 1982. Your edit removed such historically significant information as well, unfortunately.207.102.255.36 (talk) 18:59, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

207.102.255.36, your English isn't the greatest and there are some severe writing problems with the article. I can't write in another language, so you are better than I will ever be. The page that covers the following is WP:WEASEL. Here are some phrases I removed:

is a famous Cantonese opera performer, known as the legendary Yam Kim Fai's protégée & successor

in particular the vocal style Yam Hong (任腔) and natural but with grace and depth acting style.

She quickly became Yam Kim Fai's disciple, and was treasured by Yam very much

and gained a lot of popularity by acting in various types of Cantonese opera.

Only one of these phrases had a reference which was #1. That reference is to a TV schedule and never mention Loong. In both John Wayne and Bruce Lee, only once was "legend" mentioned in each article and both were referenced. In order for the phrases to be included, there must be a reliable reference that mentions Loong was a "legend". I removed the awards sections as there references were to a blog. A more reliable reference is needed. You have much admiration for Loong which is clouding your judgement. Articles are to be neutral, so write in a neutral tone. Take a look at some other Chinese opera performers to get an idea of how an article should be. Performers such as Zhou Xinfang, Ouyang Yuqian or Kwan Hoi-san. I am familiar with Peking opera and have seen several performances. As I don't speak Chinese, what stood out were the costumes and masks. Too bad Chinese opera and Western opera are in a state of decline for the same reasons. Bgwhite (talk) 22:09, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bgwhite,

1. Please clarify what request you were referring to in your comment below.

"You know you have been on Wikipedia too long when you start recognizing names... I've come across the ..., plus I understood Chinese opera in a request today. I need to get a life."

2. Your reply below refers.

"I removed the awards sections as there references were to a blog. "

Please explain which blog. the only link is to the official award authority

That is - 任藝笙輝念濃情 IFPI HKG 2015 List of Best Sales Releases, Classical and Operatic Works Recording (Order in Chinese Stroke Counts).

"A more reliable reference is needed." Please suggest one more reliable than the one organization actually gave Loong the award.

3. In order for the phrases to be included, there must be a reliable reference that mentions Loong was a "legend".

According to your quote above, you removed

is a famous Cantonese opera performer, known as the legendary Yam Kim Fai's protégée & successor

The current version actually reads

is a Cantonese opera performer, known as Yam Kim Fai's protégée and successor.

My understanding is you removed actually:

• famous, which was an adjective describing Loong, the subject of said article

• the legendary, which was an adjective describing Yam Kim Fai

I have covered Yam Kim Fai already. For Loong as 'famous', please refer to the two reports from local press.

http://hk.on.cc/hk/bkn/cnt/entertainment/20151227/bkn-20151227144840017-1227_00862_001.html - Original Ref 13 阿刨率新人演《紫釵記》　劇迷讚不老傳說 【on.cc東網專訊】 Looking perfect as lovers on stage opposite new young talents.207.102.255.36 (talk) 17:44, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

http://hk.on.cc/hk/bkn/cnt/entertainment/20160101/bkn-20160101152050007-0101_00862_001.html - Original Ref 14 《紫釵記》全劇　阿刨演繹師父任劍輝派功夫，儼如師父上身般 【on.cc東網專訊】 As if the Legendary Cantonese opera master back alive on stage.207.102.255.36 (talk) 17:44, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Both started with 粵劇名伶龍劍笙（阿刨）.

My translation is 粵劇Cantonese opera 名famous 伶performer 龍Lung 劍Kim 笙Sang (阿Ah 刨Pau).

Bing the 粵劇名伶龍劍笙（阿刨) to see how popular that phase is and you will get a few more. [22] gives all those pages online with such wording.

4. Look at the TV Schedule referred. You will see at 18:20 舞台下的龍劍笙 - the name of programme in Chinese.

龍劍笙 is the Chinese name of Loong Kim Sang of Wikipedia.

5. With all due respect, Kwan Hoi-san was a respected member of Cantonese Opera community by seniority as in age not fame. He worked for the legendary Yam Kim Fai in 1940s when Yam's troupe was in Macau, then a colony of Portugal.

Kwan was NOT famous until in 1975 TV production "The Legend of the Book and the Sword" (1976) which is also the first line of his Filmography.

6. So much more to explain to you while life is short. What you removed was the work of many editors over a few years in under various environment. That is very unfortunate if you did not understand Cantonese Opera. Difference between Cantonese opera and Chinese opera is way beyond my ability to start explaining to you as well.207.102.255.36 (talk) 17:58, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

207.102.255.36 I can't answer all your questions right now as I'm already late for bed tonight. I'm not doubting what you are saying about Loong. There needs to be very good references in order to put it into Wikipedia.

1. "You know you have been on Wikipedia too long when you start recognizing names... I've come across the ..., plus I understood Chinese opera in a request today. I need to get a life." I was referring that I knew of two relatively obscure topics... A noble family located in Galicaia during the 1500-1600's and Chinese opera. Chinese opera isn't well known in the west.

For myself, the word "Request" means a LOT more than this non-answer above. Your silence speaks volume.207.102.255.36 (talk) 17:44, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

1. Please explain which blog. the only link is to the official award authority You used https://phyllissabrinafan.blogspot.ca as a reference. This website is from a personal blog (zh:網誌). This is not a reliable site because the person can write anything they want.

Before you came along the list of References

1. Maybe The Cantonese Opera Diva January 01, 2016 Australia

2. 舞台下的龍劍笙 November 14, 2015 Hong Kong

3. "Princess Chang Ping". The Illuminated Lantern. Retrieved 26 December 2010.

4. Tragedy of the Poet King(1968) Sin Fung Ming Production 01/30/1968

5. Laugh in the Sleeve (1975) Hing Fut Film Company Production 02/08/1975

6. Princess Chang Ping (1976) Golden Harvest Productions and Golden Phoenix 01/30/1976

7. The Legend of the Purple Hairpin (1977) Golden Phoenix Films Production 02/12/1977

8. Women Pioneer in Hong Kong, population Seven million, the Debut guest 七百萬人的先鋒 April 07, 2012 Hong Kong

9. HKAPA Curtain call December 23, 2015 Crew of new young talents

10. HKAPA Curtain call December 24, 2015 Crew of new young talents

11. HKAPA Curtain call December 29, 2015 Art Director Yam Bing-Yee

12. HKAPA Curtain call December 30, 2015 Art Director Yam Bing-Yee

13. 阿刨率新人演《紫釵記》　劇迷讚不老傳說 【on.cc東網專訊】 Looking perfect as lovers on stage opposite new young talents.

14. 《紫釵記》全劇　阿刨演繹師父任劍輝派功夫，儼如師父上身般 【on.cc東網專訊】 As if the Legendary Cantonese opera master back alive on stage.

15. 任藝笙輝念濃情 IFPI HKG 2015 List of Best Sales Releases, Classical and Operatic Works Recording (Order in Chinese Stroke Counts)

Your rude unfortunate edit removed the link to two pieces of local press report as well as the IFPI HKG 2015 page of award winners while the HKAPA Curtain call links were as per the request already covered above.207.102.255.36 (talk) 17:44, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For other statements, you had no reference for.

I good example of references would be too look at Loong's Chinese Wikipedia article, zh:龍劍笙. It looks to have alot of references.

You said you do not speak Chinese but not whether if you read Chinese. According to your said comment above regarding the TV Schedule (at 18:20) led to my taking it for granted you do not read Chinese at all.

However, I trust you can still read the edit history of zh:龍劍笙. So, please look where you go regarding this topic of Cantonese opera and more specifically this actress.207.102.255.36 (talk) 17:44, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'll add more tomorrow. Bgwhite (talk) 09:11, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bgwhite,

I am sure you have a life to live and now understand you took too much of my time to finish the zh:龍劍笙 for reasons or circumstances beyond what you has answered so far.

Articles you so far suggested are either

1. with all due respect a washed-up, mean but true description, performer

2. not related to Cantonese opera

3. my work for the last three weeks on this particular subject but only 60% complete at best

Loong made four movies in her life so far. They all have over $1m box-office on record out-there. Her 1976 movie was definitely on the top ten list and box-office was over $3m.

Totally FOUR opera movie was made ever since the collapse in 1969-70 of such. Loong was the male lead for three of these four while Kwan left Cantonese opera and started to work for TV productions. One was on the rise since 1972 and best reflected in the charitable event raising fund for the tragedy happened in June 18, (618) 1972. The who's who in such event were always the best reflection of their status. Loong was there playing second fiddle to mentor Yam, in a bright yellow turtle neck pull over and navy blue skirt, and leading the 5 classmates all singing back up at the back. That picture is ICONIC both for Cantonese opera and the Hong Kong in 1970s. That's how Loong was introduced to the wider audience by modern technology.

People said that one should stop digging when in a hole. Not sure where it came from but sounds very wise to me. Meanwhile, I have lots more in my head to add be included in the zh:龍劍笙 you referred to.207.102.255.36 (talk) 17:44, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

... arriving at the dawn of civilization, maybe even the Cro-Magnons in the article on Francisco Mariño y Soler. Left a note on the discussion page. I strongly believe his efforts should be channeled in a personal family blog rather than wikipedia. Best regards, --Maragm (talk) 06:05, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Maragm You know you have been on Wikipedia too long when you start recognizing names... I've come across the House of Sotomayor multiple times this month, plus I understood Chinese opera in a request today. I need to get a life.

A family tree type thingy he is doing could be helpful, but his sources are terrible. Xenealogia does give their sources, but most of the time its to other Xenealogia sites. My favourite is this. Its source is to a commercial tourist site in which the web page is no longer there (if it ever existed). After his month long block on enwiki and blocks on eswiki, I think we have a case of WP:COMPETENCE, not to mention all the other stuff he has done. Oooh, he's also uploading copyright images, sigh.

I'll revert. I'll write a message on his talk page. Could you follow up with a message in Spanish to make sure he understands. If he still doesn't get it, an indef block is probably in order. Bgwhite (talk) 07:08, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Will do that when you write the message. Your favorite website is the one I mentioned in the article's discussion page. I'm certain that this family is exceptional, but then a difference of at least 150 years between Fernando Pérez de Traba and his grandson Juan is just a bit too much. --Maragm (talk) 07:19, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bgwhite,

I was wondering what was wrong with my edit in the Xylospongium article about mentioning that Ancient Romans used it as a substitute for toilet paper sometimes. I had about 11 references cited, about 4 of them books on Ancient Room hosted on Google Books.

For example, here's a book that quotes Martialis, a Roman Poet at the time the Xylospongium would be being used: [23]

Here's the edit in question http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Xylospongium&oldid=720768029

I'm new to Wikipedia, so it would be helpful to know why any of those sources do not seem valid. Thanks! :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by LeisureContributer (talk • contribs) 20:06, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

LeisureContributer, there are several concerns about the one sentence.

1. The romans also used it to wipe up after pooping is not a good sentence. It can be written more tactfully.
2. Some of the refs are bad, including Tumbler and Wikipedia. These are unreliable because anybody can edit these sites and these sources should not be used.
3. Most importantly, the article already mentions Roman people and places. The sentence becomes redundant. You could make it clear by changing a sentence further up to read, "In the classical antiquity, for example in the Roman Empire, a xylospongium might....

Adding the Google book refs was a very good idea. It would be best to keep the references in the same style that is already in the article. Add the "short" reference to the reference section. In the bibliography section is the complete reference various books, this is where you add the "long" version for Google books you found.

Don't worry about being new and making mistakes. There is a learning curve around here. If you have questions on how to do something, don't hesitate to ask. There is difference between an experience editor like me compared to a newbie like you. We both make mistakes, but you make common, ease mistakes and I make complex, hard and time consuming mistakes. Bgwhite (talk) 21:41, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bgwhite,

I noticed that BG19bot has been using http:// to access the API, rather than https:// Access to http:// is going to be disabled in a few weeks. The official announcement is in this e-mail message. I've been encouraging people to go to Wikipedia:Bot owners' noticeboard or ask on the mailing list if they need help. About 60 bots or scripts are using insecure access frequently (=more than a few thousand times a week), so there are quite a few people who need to make updates.

I hope all's well otherwise, Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 23:28, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Whatamidoing (WMF) Thank you. I use both AWB and WPCleaner. I'm not sure what protocol either of them use, so I'll ping their owners...@NicoV and Magioladitis:. Bgwhite (talk) 23:52, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks ! WPCleaner already uses https for the API. --NicoV ^{(Talk on frwiki)} 09:36, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

AWB uses https for the API as default. Editors can override this using custom project but the default is https. -- Magioladitis (talk) 10:55, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the replies. Magioladitis, is there a way for AWB to automatically redirect http:// requests in these custom projects? (I'm assuming the answer is 'no', but I'm just guessing.) Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 17:30, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]