User talk:Bgwhite/Archive 52

Archive 45

←

Archive 50

Archive 51

Archive 52

Archive 53

Archive 54

Archive 55

Bot error

Re: this, the reflist is inserted by template and so your bot is apparently blind to it. I've had to revert twice now. More generally, if your bot is ever reverted by a registered account or has the same "error" come up again on an article it has already "fixed", it needs to not repeat the same edit but should instead just leave a talk page message and move on. Thanks! postdlf (talk) 14:09, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

postdlf which template is that? And why a reflist is added by template? This is very uncommon. -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:17, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

It's the first template on the page, {{SCOTUS-justice-listframe}}, when |notes=yes is set (which in this case it is). --Redrose64 (talk) 14:20, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Template was created 2 weeks ago and it's transcluded in about 50 pages. I strongly recommend that the References list is not autogenerated. -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:23, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

The template was created in April 2015. Yes, it's uncommon, it's something I developed for a series of identically formatted list/table articles. They all have the same base references (pages on the SCOTUS website, varying from page to page only by date accessed and the year of the source) which is why it's autogenerated, with optional footnotes to toggle on or off as needed. It makes updating much faster and keeps the formatting completely uniform. But the main issue is we have a bot repeatedly conflicting with a live user to make an edit that is not necessary nor constructive in this instance (it causes a duplicate, empty "references" header). postdlf (talk) 14:27, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

postdlf sure. No issues with that. But for instance BG19bot does hundreds of edits per day. A single revert won't stop it. A message like this one you just left it will. -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:31, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Shouldn't a bot be programmed to react to reverts so as to prevent it from re-queuing the same "problem" article again? Maybe that's an unrealistic expectation, I don't know...I've never programmed a bot and I know it's complicated and a lot of work. postdlf (talk) 14:45, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't see a rationale for why the template needs to spit out a "references list" and not just the "widely-used" references themselves. Is there a rationale for that? --Izno (talk) 15:15, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

I tried it out many ways when I was developing it and settled on the current form because it caused the least layout problems and it templatized everything that remains the same across all the lists. From what I recall, having some sections generated by local code and some templatized caused layout conflicts. Also the URLs are not completely standard from year to year (the URLs have changed and the earliest ones from the last decade are available only in archived versions). But every list and every year has the same three types of general reference for the three types of opinion categories (these are the sources that give comprehensive counts for each term), so it made sense to have that reference framework automatic. Any other references to add (such as for when the opinion summaries are expanded and need secondary source cites or annotations, as in the one the bot was editing above) go in a footnotes section with a reflist. postdlf (talk) 16:34, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

How about a template containing those three refs and adding it to a ==references== section? There are other such templates. Bgwhite (talk) 18:25, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Is it just the lack of a "references" header in the local code that is triggering your bot to think it has a problem to fix? postdlf (talk) 18:47, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Its not just my bot. If I remember right, MediaWiki used to add the reference section when one is missing, but it was stopped a ~year ago. Bots now do it. The main argument is... what if somebody wants to add something to the reference section?... very confusing to anybody wanting to edit it. Long term solution (I think), it's best to go the same route others take.

On another note. The article is not accessibility friendly. Black text on green/red background is hard to impossible to read for those with colour blindness. Colour is being used to convey information, thus the blind can't "read" it. Bgwhite (talk) 19:10, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

The lack of a {{reflist}} template or <references /> tag in an article's wikicode will get that article on a variety of "articles to be fixed" lists. I think that Postdlf will find that human and bot editors will continue to add the reflist template to these articles, even though it is technically not needed. The least frustrating route is probably to do things in a standard way, omitting the reflist from the rather clever templates that otherwise generate this whole page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:19, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

I could exclude these pages but it would be rather uncommon and I wonder what happens if future editors want to add other sections in between the existing ones. -- Magioladitis (talk) 19:28, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

I and the other editors who work in this subject area will be happy to address that when it actually happens; there's no point to talking about hypotheticals when I have no idea what other section might be appropriate to add to all of these lists (and in the decade plus these have existed, originally with bare code rather than templates, that has never happened). What the template automates is just infrastructure, which should be the same across all lists of the same specific kind. "What if an article properly renders and displays footnotes but your bot doesn't recognize that?" is an actual issue here, not a hypothetical. And note that reflist is only used under the optional "notes" header (most of these lists do not have footnotes, at least yet), not under the "references" header. Is there some dummy code that I can insert for the timebeing in the page to make the bot think it has what it's looking for (what if {{reflist}} is added in comments?), or a don't-edit redlist all of these pages could be added to to avoid bot fixes at all? I'd be happy to populate that. I'd hope a human would actually look at the fact that the article renders properly rather than putting their blinders on and just seeing that something isn't present in the local code. But I'd also hope that, just as editors get notifications that their edits have been reverted, that bots would as well that would prevent them from just repeating the same edit. I'm fairly sure Cluebot responds differently if that happens, for example. postdlf (talk) 19:55, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

postdlf I am sorry for all this trouble. Unfortunately, there is no dummy code that you could add. I will have to modify the core code of AWB to skip these pages once and for good. Maybe we should move towards the solution you suggest and create a list of pages that do not need a reflist template. -- Magioladitis (talk) 19:58, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

In this context, it would be every page that transcludes Template:SCOTUS-justice-listframe. Would it be simpler to tell it to skip pages that contain that template rather than to name the individual pages? There are some older lists in this group for which I have yet to update the code to the current version, and every year a new batch are created...so the list of articles would always be expanding. postdlf (talk) 20:05, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

postdlf yes. This is how it works. We have 2 more cases of templates like these but to be honest this case is the most extreme since it produces a lot of text and it is located at the bottom. -- Magioladitis (talk) 20:15, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

I think I found the right page, at User:Magioladitis/AWB and CHECKWIKI? And then I'd just need to create and populate Wikipedia:WikiProject Check Wikipedia/Error 003 whitelist? postdlf (talk) 21:14, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

postdlf As Jonesey95 said above, this will not stop other bots and human editors from doing the same thing. The "easy" fix is to add it to the Whitelist, but this only stops the article from showing up on the list. All bots and humans will still "fix" the article. The better and long term solution is to have the article behave like all other articles. Adding it to the whitelist will not solve anything. Bgwhite (talk) 21:49, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

"The better and long term solution is to have the article behave like all other articles." Maybe you've overstated what you meant to say, but that sounds like sacrificing innovation just to accommodate automated/bot editing. But I'll think about whether there's a way to accomplish that without sacrificing function; in the meantime I'll create the whitelist and revert as needed. postdlf (talk) 22:39, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

In addition, this template (in doing at least this if not the rest of it) falls afoul of WP:TG: "Templates should not normally be used to store article text, as this makes it more difficult to edit the content. They should also not be used to "collapse" or "hide" content from the reader."

In this regard, if you don't change the template yourself, I am happy to send it to WP:TFD to see if they agree. They probably will tell you to change the behavior in the same way as we are requesting. --Izno (talk) 21:52, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, that's not very collaborative as you admit, so I'll pretend you didn't threaten deletion processes to get your way in a less than day-old discussion with another longtime editor. As this is really beyond the scope of this talk page, if you'd like to discuss it further and collaboratively, we can discuss it on my talk page, at Template talk:SCOTUS-justice-listframe, or at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases. Who knows, we just might improve things in both our views. postdlf (talk) 22:39, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

...and I actually may have thought to a solution for this particular issue that would let us have our cake and eat it too. I'm going to test in my sandbox. postdlf (talk) 22:57, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Please don't be disingenuous in suggesting that your approach is better in that you must have it your way by modification of the various and sundry automated tools making edits similar to this rather than the modification of the template.

I have no inclination to seek feedback at any of those venues given that I believe I know what a Wikipedia-wide consensus would be (see WP:CONLEVEL).

WP:TFD isn't a deletion process, and in fact I wouldn't seek deletion. I would seek modification to do what we keep suggesting you do, which is to modify the template to not spit out its own reflist and references section. I believe that's trivial to do, but I didn't get that far into the mess of table within a table within a table code of a template. --Izno (talk) 02:00, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm afraid we're not understanding each other very well. Please do drop a note on my talk page and we can continue there. AFAIC, the issue that brought me here is resolved (thanks, Magioladitis). postdlf (talk) 02:13, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Postdlf It's not resolved. Bots and people will still add a ref header. People still have problems understanding the template and are unable to add material to the reference section. Only a band-aid has been applied. The template is still unusable to the blind and partially usable to the colour blind. If Izno's description of a table inside a table, ... it means only you can change the template. Only you can add to the ref section. We will all leave Wikipedia and people will want to edit the template or add refs. Wikipedia is where everyone can edit a page. I can only do easy to medium templates, so please work with Izno to improve it. I don't want to sound like I hate what you've done. It's a page where you can just look and understand what is going on. It's easy to get the info. It's very well thought out. It is the best data oriented page I've seen. Bgwhite (talk) 06:25, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, of course it can be changed so the footer sections are not added by template; it was originally set up that way, and I guess if this can't resolved to everyone's satisfaction it can be be changed back. But it represents a lot of time to change all the pages that use it (and then more editing time required to update the pages when that's not all templatized), not any coding thought or development. It can also be made more flexible quite easily, so that additional general references could be added (not a footnote), but so far I haven't seen anyone propose such a reference. Note again that the "reference" header section isn't what brought me here, but rather the footnotes under "notes", which anyone can add to freely with the existing code the same way as with any other page. What's triggering it, the presence of ref tags in the local article code while {{nowiki}} is not in the local code but instead only transcluded?

Also, is there a way to tag the pages so they can't be edited by bots/automation? postdlf (talk) 13:47, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

So I've temporarily removed the frame template that generates the header and footers to make the reflist local; it took me about 15 mins just to alter this one page.[1] I can of course make a new template that only generates the header, but again that still represents a big investment of time, first to make that change and later to update these pages, and to create new ones. The less that is templatized, the more time it also takes to update individual pages if there are any other formatting changes (which should, of course, be completely consistent across all the lists), and over the 11 years I've been creating/maintaining these, I've had to make many changes just to keep up with alterations in how the wikicode functions. And while I've seen a lot of concern raised here for hypothetical editors wanting to make hypothetical changes, I don't see how editors would find it more difficult to change straightforward variables in a template than to navigate through raw table code and markup. postdlf (talk) 14:12, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

See {{Bots}} for information about excluding bots from pages. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:54, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

I'll try {{nobots}} and see if that works here. postdlf (talk) 16:06, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

postdlf thanks for all the effort you did and you do. I really appreciate the work you did with these pages. You even acted faster than my standards :) For example, I thought it was my job to create the whitelist of pages. You even did that! Thanks, thanks, thanks. -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:41, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

I do what I can. : ) postdlf (talk) 16:06, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

rev 11979 AWB won't add reflist to pages with SCOTUS-justice-listframe. -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:43, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Well thanks! postdlf (talk) 00:46, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

And many more of your articles are cluttering up CheckWiki. I'm not pleased with this. Everybody has to bend over backwards because you don't want to do what everybody else has done... use a template for references. Instead, you are causing problems and causing changes everywhere else. Let me guess, either you have a PhD or a JD. Bgwhite (talk) 05:21, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Magioladitis' fix apparently didn't work, so I've restored the whitelist and the nobots template. So far your bot is the only one I've encountered on these pages at all. If that doesn't work, and we can't think of another solution, then I guess I'll have to make a change to the template to resolve this.

Maybe if I understand better what you're working from... Does the whitelist prevent the articles from showing up in the Checkwiki list? What generates that list, and how often? What if {{reflist}} is added in comment tags? postdlf (talk) 13:49, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Varna International Ballet Competition/Reverted to previous version_2

Hi, Bgwhite,

I wrote you, about the changes you made to the Varna International Ballet Competition page. You told me that we should send Declaration of consent for all enquiries, and so we have sent all the necessary information, but still have no answer about the text, that was 3 months ago. The e-mail was send by Dimitar Emilov Dimitrov, Chairman of Varna International Ballet Competition Foundation on 22.01.2016. I do know that there must be a lot of work, but 3 months is a lot of time. Can you tell me if there is something that we can do? (Тhank you for the help)

Best wishes--Аредел (talk) 14:19, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Аредел It can take sometime for a response as the OTRS people are usually swamped, but three months is too long. Where did you send the email too? Bgwhite (talk) 17:56, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi, the email was send to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, on 01.22.2016 from the official email adress of the Varna International Ballet Competition Foundation - varnaibc@gmail.com. if you want I can send you the contents of the letter. --Аредел (talk) 09:56, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

@HJ Mitchell and Moonriddengirl: HJ and Maggie, could one of you OTRS minions help Аредел out? Bgwhite (talk) 17:39, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I had a look at this; the email is 61 days old, so well within the normal margin of delay. The permission as it stands does not seem to me sufficient, so I've asked for clarification. HTH, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:34, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Becky Cloonan / TOME

Hi, you wrote

“ TOME Volume 1: "The Months That Followed" does not equal TOME, Vol1: Vampirism. The ISBN is also bad. ”

"The Months That Followed" is the name of Cloonan's short story inside TOME Volume 1. TOME Volume 1 DOES equal TOME, Vol1. Vampirism is the name of the first volume, but adding that might make it even more confusing (since it's already confusing as it is.) ISBN is taken from the address I provided. Seems the book wasn't widely distributed, so naturally the ISBN isn't recorded in any databases, but it IS in the book.

I don't think any of this is a reason enough to delete an entire entry from a bibliography.

91.122.23.27 The problem is... from a reader's standpoint, it looks like the name of book is "TOME Volume 1: The Months That Followed". Add in the bad ISBN and it looks like there is no such book. This is why I deleted it in the first place. You need to mention the books name and then say the short story's name.

I've tried finding an ISBN or OCLC number for it (TOME, Vol1: Vampirism), but I don't see one. Comic book publishers (I really hate Japanese publishers) often include a bad ISBN. As this was a limited run of 200 books, they probably didn't want to spend the money to get an ISBN. Could you give the URL link instead? This way a person can atleast find more information about. Bgwhite (talk) 00:20, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

It'd be weird to single out "TOME Volume 1: The Months That Followed" as this one example since every other entry there follows the same pattern - title of the book in italics with volume # where neccessary, colon, title of the issue/creator's story inside in quotation marks. I really don't see where you could possibly put a URL there; besides, if you google TOME Volume 1, the first seven results are related to this book.

The book is out there, the assigned ISBN is on it, there's a story by Becky Cloonan in it - guess it's safe to say it should be on her page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.122.23.27 (talk) 00:40, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

I arrived at the page because of the bad ISBN, that's why I focused on that book. There is no ISBN assigned to the book. Anyone can put up a bad ISBN on a webpage. The book's name is "TOME, Vol1: Vampirism", not "TOME Volume 1: The Months That Followed". A URL doesn't take up any space, put it on the title. The idea is for people to find the book. The average person cannot as it currently stands. Bgwhite (talk) 01:33, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Neroon Kot Model United Nations

Dear BgWhite The information on Neroon Kot Model United Nations page is based on what i know personally and according to structure we have provided and what we have listed on our website. You have been reverting the Data Since few Days. I don't think I violated any disruptive editing guide lines. Thanks. Moeez_Shah —Preceding undated comment added 19:24, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Moeez_Shah Everything should be verifiable, so personal knowledge isn't a reference. Tables containing over a hundred names of who is director of this and that is not needed. It doesn't provide any information about the organization. Having it all in caps and bolded just makes it worse as that is SHOUTING. Essentially every reference about the organization comes from itself or the University. There needs to be more 3rd party references. Bgwhite (talk) 20:42, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

BgWhite Could you define 3rd Party References, and Guide me through the proper procedure of explaining the hierarchy on Wikipedia because the Hierarchy is important and especially for the Committee Panel, you show me the proper way to define it so i can proceed. ASAP — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moeez Shah (talk • contribs) 11:20, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Moeez Shah A 3rd party, independent reference is a reference that doesn't come from Neroon Kot Model United Nation, the University it is associated with and any person associated with Neroon Kot. Let's say I add an article titled "Bgwhite". References in the article only come from me. The references I've written could be truthful or made up. There isn't a way to verify the info. See WP:3PARTY for more info.

The hierarchy is important to you, but not important from the Wikipedia standpoint. The article tells about your organization. The average reader doesn't know who these people are. It's not of any interest to the average reader. It is only interesting for people of your organizations, but the Wikipedia article isn't for them, it's for the average reader. Adding an external link at the bottom pointing to where the info can be found would be acceptable.

BgWhite I have made some amendments and described it in easiest way possible, kindly review it and tell me about the mistakes or anything else that should not be there or violating the Wikipedia rules and regulations.

Moeez Shah Looks better. I fixed the section headers. Could you change the all CAPS, ie THE ADVISORY BOARD -> The Advisory Board. Other than that, you've done a big improvement on the page. Bgwhite (talk) 18:12, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Section parameter is part of cite book

Yes, it is, but... here is what I see in Multiple integral, Ref. 5 : 'Lewin, Jonathan (2003). "16.6". An interactive introduction to mathematical analysis. Cambridge.' Do you see the same? Are you satisfied by this? Do you believe that a reader will understand that this "16.6" is a section number? Boris Tsirelson (talk) 18:03, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Tsirel I arrived at the page to remove }} from "16.6}}". So, my primary objective was to remove that. When you reverted, you restored the }}.

I'd say you have a point, except this is a "complex" math article. Does the average reader know what 193 or 94 (10) in the refs above it? We use that notation on any article, but "16.6" is a little more obscure. The two reasons to keep "16.6" as is: 1) People reading the article understand the syntax of refs. 2) If a reader ingests the refs into their reference software, "section=16.6" will be ingested, while your way won't. This is called COinS and the cite templates use it. Bgwhite (talk) 18:25, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

I see. But I believe that, then, the template should be fixed. Indeed, 94 (10) is widely used in math journals; "16.6" is not. Boris Tsirelson (talk) 18:50, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

@Tsirel: Where books have section and subsection numbering as a means for uniquely identifying a passage, I use the |at= parameter, as in |at=section 16.6 - this cannot be used in conjunction with |page=, so if the page number is also important to have, I would put |at=section 16.6, p. 123 or whatever was appropriate. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:21, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

OK, thank you, I did so. For a human reader it is the same as the previous version (by Joel B. Lewis). For software, probably, "sect=" would be better, which probably shows that, again, the template is not the best. Boris Tsirelson (talk) 07:05, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 25 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 List of Malayalam films of 2016 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) 00:28, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Glenn Eagleston

I am Books Nash.I am the creator of article Glenn Eagleston. I saw that you proposed to delete my article because:- Does not meet notability guidelines. Did not receive Medal of Honor. Was not a General. Did not play an important roll in a significant event. Did not lead a large group into combat.

I would like to remind you that, Col. Glenn Eagleston was the youngest squadron commander of 9th Air Force.He is the leading ace of Ninth Air Force, like Francis Gabreski of Eighth Air Force and Richard Bong of Fifth Air Force.Col. Eagleston was also one of the highly decorated airmen with Distinguished Service Cross,Silver Star,Legion of Merit, Distinguished Flying Cross AND Croix De Guerre. There are many pilots below the score of 18 having their articles Wikipedia.There are also pilots simply with Distinguished Flying Cross or Silver Star having articles in Wikipedia.Aces who have mastered the challenges of combat flying in two different wars, those who have succeeded in both piston and jet engine aircraft, deserve special mention in the pantheon of great aviators. Glenn Eagleston was such a pilot, flying Mustangs in WWII and F-86 Sabre jets in Korea.So, I hope you understand and revoke this deletion of the article.Books Nash (talk) 11:40, 24 March 2016 (GMT)

Books Nash Those are the requirement to receive an article and he doesn't meet them. Being the youngest commander isn't notable. Medals below Medal of valor doesn't count. Many, many soldiers have received multiple medals. Alot of pilots in that era flew both piston and jets. I'm not diminishing what Eagleston (family member?) did. He probably did more than alot of generals. There are 5+ million articles on Wikipedia and we can't patrol them all. If you tell me the articles, I can see why they are there and delete them if the don't meet the requirements. FYI... talk message go at the bottom of the page. There's a "new section" button at the top to start a new message. Bgwhite (talk) 07:54, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

There are many pilots, who have scored below the kills achieved by Col. Eagleston and yet they have articles in Wikipedia.Col. Eagleston is one of Europe's Top 20 Best Aces and he should deserve attention. He fought against a enemy committed in racial cleansing and conquering of all Europe.Besides, there are many military biography articles, which barely have one paragraph.I worked hard to find all sources and images to make this article.So, can you spare this article from deletion?He is also inducted in Utah's Aviation Hall of Fame.It is necessary we must bring attention of any of our veterans who fought for our freedom.I hope you understand. Books Nash (talk) 12:10, 24 March 2016 (GMT)

Books Nash There are about 40 aces in WW2 ahead of him for the US. How about you remove the deletion tag as you clearly are contesting it an I'll ask some of the military editors what they think. Bgwhite (talk) 08:27, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Books Nash Our veterans deserve our respect and admiration. If you haven't done so already, you may be interested in reading Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Notability guide and the essay Wikipedia:Other stuff exists. Good luck with the article! GoingBatty (talk) 15:40, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Bot Error with Multiple Issues

Hi. [Relevant diff]

Looks like the bot correctly recognized that hoax tags shouldn't go in multiple issues, but it removed the hoax tag from the multiple issues box without re-adding it anywhere else in the article (requiring manual intervention). The expected treatment is that it move the hoax tag outside of the box. Appable (talk) 12:51, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Appable You are confusing the bot's edit with Gottagotospace's edit and also gave the wrong diff. The bot did not remove the hoax tag. It moved the hoax tag into the multiple issues box, not out of. I can't find anything about where the hoax tag should go, so it's best to ask the experts.... @GoingBatty and Magioladitis:. Bgwhite (talk) 18:29, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

@Gottagotospace: I don't see anything leading me to believe that {{hoax}} does not belong in the {{multiple issues}} template like other article message boxes, so I don't understand why you made this edit. Also, I don't understand why BG19bot's edit didn't add a date to the {{hoax}} template, since {{hoax}} is included in WP:AWB/DT. Very confused. GoingBatty (talk) 15:33, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

@GoingBatty: The bot's edit summary made it seem like it was just trying to fix the reflist issue so I assumed that it was just trying to fix that error and only switched the hoax tag due to a bug. I didn't notice/understand "Do general fixes if a problem exists" (which might cover moving the hoax tag) because it was 3:50AM and it's not like my brain works perfectly at all hours of the day. My primary concern about this article is that it is a hoax (I've been trying to get it deleted for a few days), so hiding the hoax disclaimer in a box (that non-editors probably won't read) with other problems seemed like a bad idea. Making the hoax disclaimer as big as possible seemed to make sense because out of all the problems an article could have, I think that large amounts of misinformation would be the biggest issue and thus this would need to be made very clear so people don't keep reading. I'm also new here, so it's not like I would know all the rules on where all the messages go. Even Bgwhite, who has been on Wikipedia for almost eleven years and seems to be pretty intelligent, couldn't find any guidelines regarding where the hoax tag should go. I guess that's why you (one of the experts) were pinged; if an expert had to be called in, it means that the rules are not 100% clear to others and thus I should not be blamed for making an edit that you don't understand. Even if it makes logical sense to put all issues into the issues box because technically it is another issue, it didn't make sense to me because in real life, issues have different priority levels; based on the fact that a hoax by itself is enough to get an article deleted, it seems that it is pretty high on the priority list and so it makes sense that the disclaimer should be more obvious than one of the more minor issues with the page.

I'm not saying that my opinion should overrule an experienced editor's opinion and/or Wikipedia guidelines, but since you said you didn't understand why I made the edit, I just wanted to explain it. Gottagotospace (talk) 16:50, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

@GoingBatty: I have to concur with Gottagotospace that hoax tags probably shouldn't be in a multiple issues template since it's an entirely different and much more problematic issue than the other issues an article might have (which is obvious because the template is so different). Appable (talk) 03:51, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

@Gottagotospace and Appable: Thank you for sharing your thoughts. Since Template:Multiple issues has supported {{hoax}} for years, you may want to take this conversation to Template talk:Hoax or Template talk:Multiple issues. Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 04:24, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Question about reversion

Hello Bgwhite!

I noticed your reversion, which included my work as well as that of an anonymous user. There were more reversion from anonymous sources than mine. Did you object to my contribution? If so, can I ask why? All the best, --Achim Hering (talk) 15:02, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Achim Hering I wasn't sure what you were doing. On Phil Snyder, you ended his entry with "professor at the [[University of", which included the removal of a reference. Not sure why you removed Cheryl Tiegs or Robert Vaughn. Adding the photo of Douglas H. Evans was unnecessary. No offence to Evans, but he isn't "famous" to have the photo there.

About Douglas H. Evans, you need to add some references as there are currently none. Refs need to be independent and from a third party. As it stands now, it could be put up for deletion. Bgwhite (talk) 18:01, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out. I will do that. Usually I put in external links below. I'll have to figure out about in-line certifications. Best regards,--Achim Hering (talk) 18:51, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

I am puzzled by changes you say I made concerning Phil Snyder, Cheryl Tiegs and Robert Vaughan. I have zero interest in those individuals and would not be motivated to make any changes to anything about them. Unless I did something inadvertently on the computer, or maybe someone used my identity, I am baffled. --Achim Hering (talk) 18:56, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) @Achim Hering: In your edit to List of California State University, Los Angeles people, you removed Snyder, Tiegs, and Vaughan when you added Douglas H. Evans. Maybe this was an accident? GoingBatty (talk) 03:27, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

I'll pull a Ronald Reagan on that one: "I have no recollection of that." I am an inclusionist, not a deletionist and have nothing against nor any interest in those people. Must be a computer fart.--Achim Hering (talk) 15:16, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Tech News: 2016-13

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

• MediaWiki now supports the semantic web standards of Microdata and RDFa 1.0. On Wikimedia projects, a configuration change must be requested in order to enable RDFa 1.0. [2] [3]

Problems

• Adding references with Citoid was broken for approximately 6 hours on 24 March. This was fixed. [4]

Changes this week

• The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 29 March. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 30 March. It will be on all wikis from 31 March (calendar).
• You will be able to remove the header and footer style from User language (babel) boxes. This will make it easier to use them with other userboxes. [5]

Meetings

• You can join the next meeting with part of the Architecture committee, which will discuss a few topics. The meeting will be on 30 March at 21:00 (UTC). See how to join.
• The Architecture committee has sent a summary of new and ongoing RFC discussions.

Future changes

• Commons will soon have improved access to Wikidata's data. It will then be possible to access data about any concept on any page on Commons. Assistance with testing this on the beta cluster is appreciated. [6]
• Wikibits.js will not be loaded by default anymore starting April 2016. Gadget and script authors should have already updated their code since the previous announcements, but there is another migration path available if needed. See wikitech-l for details.

Corrections

• Last week Tech News said the new MediaWiki version would come to wikis from 21 March to 23 March. The right dates were 22 March to 24 March.

Tech news prepared by tech ambassadors and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

19:43, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Regarding Education

Juhayman al-Otaybi wikipedia page having a tag Infobox criminal, I want to include his education as 'Islamic University of Madinah' at the right side, could not edit the article at the right side, just I has made the changes to the main article. . Juhayman al-Otaybi neither represented to Umm Al-Qura University nor he was student. But still Google Knowledge base result shows his education refers to Umm Al-Qura University, but has studied through Islamic University of Madinah. Our prime object is we don't want to see him in Google Knowledge base results as Notable Alumni. Please suggest how can we proceed to make the changes.

Younusm (talk) 05:42, 29 March 2016 (UTC) 

Merger discussion for Family tree of Muhammad

An article that you have been involved in editing—Family tree of Muhammad —has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. 89.240.87.162 (talk) 20:12, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

RSN

(That's this RSN, not that RSN.)

Quick update: I talked to CX's product manager yesterday, and he says that the broken ISBNs bug is on the list for sometime during the next three months. My proposal for last month was not accepted. 😉 Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 01:00, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Whatamidoing (WMF) Thank you for the update. I keep fixing them after I do scans of a dump. Also scan and fix nowiki tags surrounding ISBNs. Found a new one this month, format is: [[:da:Speciel:ISBN søgning/8798817264|ISBN 87-988172-6-4]] There weren't too many of these, but they were added by VE. Bgwhite (talk) 04:52, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

It looks like that one was added in 2015. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 19:00, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Latvian Wikipedia, again

Hi! Two questions.

1. Why here for template "LAT e" there is only 5 transclusions? There are way many more. And why here I see only first parameter? I'm usually using two. OK, I can get both of them here, but still... It's related to refs? Anyway, great tool to at least simply get overview, how much templates are (really) used, what you can't get with SQL queries :) And then those templates can be cleaned-up (also with templatedata and documentation).
2. Maybe you could do a one-time analize of lvwiki's wikilinks? What I would like to get is list of most linked articles in ns0. I'm mostly interested in redlinks, but as it wouldn't be possible (I assume) to filter them out in scanning process, then simply "getting links" would be fine. Would like to once analyze real redlinks, not counting them with those, which comes from navboxes and other crap. How many (if the answer to initial question is yes, of course)? Well, how much you can give, it will be fine :) Maybe for count(of links to page)>5. lvwiki isn't so big, only approx.400 MB unzipped archive :) Why I'm asking this to you? As I understand, you're the main guy for templatetiger, so it's kind of the same algorithm (at least partly). Thoughts?

--Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 20:25, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Edgars2007 Second question first... I only see the wikicode. I cannot interpret if a wikilink is red or blue. I can't tell what a template will write out. So, I can't help you with that one. At one time, there was a tool on the old toolserver that did this, but the person didn't port it over to his new spot. I'm assuming it can be done via a database request because I see reports for categories and files that are redlinked. I'd try doing a request at quarry.

For the first question... I noticed that {{monuments}} has ~7,200 transclusions on templatetiger, but alot less listed on lvwiki. Something strange is going on. I tried to look at the raw data, what templatetiger ingests, but it kept freezing the console. I'll try again tomorrow and if I still have problems, will download it to my computer. Bgwhite (talk) 05:58, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Second question. Yes, wikicode analysis is exactly what I need. I already have query for simply redlinks (have to clean-up that query, but it works). What I want, is one-time analysis (OK, I maybe would ask you this sometime in future) of real redlinks. Red/blue - that's why I was asking as much links, as resources and other things allows, you don't have to do that distinction between red and blue. That will be my problem :)

First q. Well, monuments template is used in some 130 pages, but many times on each. Very small example. --Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 07:14, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Edgars2007 I looked at the raw file. There are 1135 cases of "LAT e". The appears to be two instances of "LAT e" per article... assuming that, there are 567 articles with "LAT e". So, the raw file I produce "appears" ok. I'm assuming it's on the templatetiger end. Kolossos on dewiki handles template tiger. He was asked a question about templatetiger last week and he said he doesn't have much time for it. Bgwhite (talk) 22:08, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Hmm, 1135 looks too much. I usually use it only once per article (I'm the main and probably only user of that template). But OK, it's not so very important. Thanks for looking up to this. Maybe if you have the raw data in some (at least kind of) pretty table with template name and number of count, then maybe you can publish it somewhere, maybe here (you can override the stuff)? No formatting is needed, again - that would be my problem. --Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 07:15, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

a) Thanks for results. If I read them correctly, it's two lines per one transclusion, so 1135/2 is the real result and it seems OK. But actually, I was talking about this table :D [maybe there are some other mismatches besides LAT e template]

b) if you do that link count thing, maybe you could do one more analysis for me? Could you scan lvwiki templates and count number of parser functions? Basically, you just need to count number of {{# (if I haven't missed anything), excluding {{#invoke. Maybe there are some templates, that can be simplified. Ideally you could group them by (lowercased) function name like:

Template	{{#if	123

Template	{{#ifeq	1

Template2	{{#ifeq	13

...

But that would be too much asked at this time, right? Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 21:01, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Edgars2007 I can give you the entire raw data file, but it is 25MB compressed. On #if and #ifeq, CheckWiki error #34 already looks for these. Bgwhite (talk) 20:14, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

On #if and #ifeq (and other parser functions), I will repeat: "Could you scan lvwiki templates" :) --Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 20:25, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Edgars2007 Sent the file. As it is bigger than 25GB, it goes as a GDrive link. I'm missing something about the templates with #if. Are you talking in the articles or in the template code itself? If it is in the articles, that is already handled by CheckWiki #34. If it is in the template code, yes I think so. Bgwhite (talk) 21:19, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you! Looks very interesting :) Yes, I'm asking you to scan template code, not articles. And return the number of parser functions (ideally grouped by name) per template. --Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 21:51, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Magioladitis Could you do the scan? When I try to switch language to lv, I get the same json error as when I edit talk pages. If RJ is with you, slap him and say to fix it. :) Bgwhite (talk) 22:06, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Phillip Allen Hall III‎

Hi, I see that you deleted one of several previous versions of Phillip Allen Hall III‎ a little bit ago, it looks like he (it's an autobio) immediately recreated it. I CSDed it again, thought I would let you know. JamesG5 (talk) 06:47, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

JamesG5 Thank you for the update. I've salted the article so it can't be recreated, atleast at the spot. Bgwhite (talk) 06:54, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

And it's back right here: Phillip Hall III. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:16, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

RickinBaltimore Looks like we have a stubborn $(&*@>). Salted the article and blocked the account as a sockpuppet. I'm sure there is going to be more fun. Thank you for telling me. I have a feeling it's going to take alot of us to keep track of this person. Bgwhite (talk) 20:24, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Archibald Cox

Bgwhite: I'm not sure everything you are doing on the Archibald Cox page, but what I see I very much appreciate. I am trying to do a substantial re-write of the article and after several hours my aging eyes can't accurately do the markup language in the arial-like font that WP uses. I hope your cleanup is not a great burden because I see I leave a lot to be cleaned up. I especially am glad you take care of the en-dashes. It is just to tedious to stop typing and use a mouse to insert en-dashes.

I also appreciate that you do the edits at times I am not actively editing. I have only rarely encountered edit-clashes.

BTW, I am not sure you make this correction or another editor. But is there a reason to prefer the "cite news" template over the "cite newspaper"?

Any way, many thanks. AnthroMimus (talk) 05:19, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

AnthroMimus It looks like we have been dancing for awhile... You do an edit, I do an edit and Cha-cha-cha. This is what I do, so I don't mind. If you encounter an edit conflict, you can click the back button on your web browser. You will be taken back to your edit window with your edit intact. {{Cite newspaper}} is a redirect to cite news, so cite news is its formal name. Bgwhite (talk) 05:26, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Real Life Barnstar
	hey i wanted contact you for my page deletaio of ja'am(title) may i ask bro that can you retrieve it back for me Jsa.99 (talk) 18:12, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Tech News: 2016-14

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

• You can filter Special:Log in more detail. [7]
• Wikimedia wikis have a new way of counting visitors. [8]

Changes this week

• The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from April 5. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from April 6. It will be on all wikis from April 7 (calendar).

Tech news prepared by tech ambassadors and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

22:13, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Steven Grieveson

What I added and you removed on the above article wasn't a book, but a magazine. It can be found here. Although not ideal as an addition (although hardly irrelevant) it is the closest thing I have ever found to a concise printed account of this case, and has been used for a few references within this article. I assure you the ISSN and chapter title are correct, although I'll leave it to you to choose whether to reinsert it or not. Regards,--Kieronoldham (talk) 00:29, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Kieronoldham, the number you added was an International Article Number (EAN), usually a bar code used for marking retail products. It is not a bibliographic identifier. ISSN is a different identifier. It looks like the ISSN for the item you are citing is ISSN 0262-4141. If you have seen this source yourself, you can insert it into the article. Make sure that you cite the name of the magazine, Master Detective, as well as the ISSN. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:20, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Jonesey95. I had concerns even when initially adding that magazine, and was aware it was not a permanent or verifiable marker. Difference with this one as opposed to Murder Casebook publications etc. is that they have clearly marked and verifiable bar codes. Anyhow, without meandering my reply, I'll reinsert this as you've cleared misunderstandings. Thanks. Kez.--Kieronoldham (talk) 02:03, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

An EAN beginning 977- contains part of an ISSN within it. For example, right beside me is a magazine barcoded 9-770033-892309. Rearranging the hyphens gives 977-0033-892-30-9 - of this, 977 is the "bookland" prefix, it identifes periodicals in general; 0033-892 is the first seven digits of the true ISSN; 30 is the "sequence variant"; and 9 is the check digit. The true ISSN for this magazine is 0033-8923 but it is a coincidence that the last 3 (which is also a check digit, but calculated differently) matches with the 3 of the sequence variant. More at Identification with the EAN 13 barcode and About Barcodes - ISSN barcodes. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:48, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Genealogical hoaxes

Hello Bgwhite, I just saw that you placed a template for speedy deletion regarding this article. I had proposed for deletion a couple of weeks ago, another article which was deleted written by the same user. This one. Please read carefully the explanation of why I thought the article should be deleted. This user writes under more than one name and has been creating articles which are total hoaxes, with references that do not confirm what is stated, includes himself as the holder of extinguished or non-existent titles, original research, etc. Take a look at the following, either created or expanded by the same user. I believe they should all be deleted or, if previously created, what he has added should be removed. The articles are as follows: [9]; [10]; [11];[12]; [13]; [14]; [15]; [16]; [17]; [18]; [19]; [20]. I think that he should create a blog rather than use wikipedia for disseminating all of this erroneous and self-laudatory information. You can write me an email if you wish if you want me to to go into more detail. Best regards, --Maragm (talk) 05:39, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Maragm I've noticed them creating the articles too. They had an article deleted as a hoax in the past. The editor who found it to be a hoax, with supporting info from Spanish Wikipedia, hasn't been active for awhile. For Principality of Tricarico, it was a real thing, but I don't know if the info in the article is correct. There really isn't much refs for the amount of info. I also don't know Spanish that well. Prince of Squilache check out via info from the Spanish Wikipedia. I'm not sure what to do. Srnec, you were on the AfD of Mariño family, do you have any ideas? Bgwhite (talk) 06:07, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, there are some, as you mentioned, that did exist. But many of these titles are now extinct. I'm going to send you an email in a minute. --Maragm (talk) 06:11, 7 April 2016 (UTC) pd...I see that it is unabled and can't send it now.

I'm also going to "ping" HombreDHojalata, also involved in the request for deletion of the other article mentioned above, to see what he has to say.--Maragm (talk) 06:29, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Single use of your bot

Is there some way to use your bot to remove any control characters and replace any other non-standard characters on my user page and talk page. This would be just a one-time operation. So I do not want to go through some complicated process of getting permission to use bots generally. JRSpriggs (talk) 06:02, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

JRSpriggs Yes and no... depends on the characters. This is up Magioladitis' alley. He should be waking up shortly. Bgwhite (talk) 06:13, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

I can't detect any control character in these two pages. -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:58, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

To Bgwhite: Thank you for your reply.

To Magioladitis: Thank you for checking and telling me. That puts my mind at ease. JRSpriggs (talk) 11:02, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) FWIW, I didn't find any either. – Jonesey95 (talk) 11:22, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

SS Hopestar Afd

Afternoon. I read your AFD and the article. Why was she notable?scope_creep (talk) 12:59, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

scope_creep Ship sank killing 40 people and there were newspaper accounts about this. This was not obvious in the original version of the article. Bgwhite (talk) 17:39, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Burhinus

Hello BGWHITE,

Thank you for your message/edit. The references to my sandbox were in error and I will correct them. I will, however revert to the final version of my Burhinus edit to do so. I updated the whole page as a project and whilst are two errors linking to my sandbox, I will fix these and you will see that the most recent version is in fact appropriately (and exhaustively) referenced.

All the best — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pteropus 8 (talk • contribs) 22:46, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Principality of Treano

Good day, I have seen until now the note about the speedly eraser you leave me but also the page was erased already. Could you explain me why reason you erase the page "Principality of Treano?. I don´t find valids arguments for that.

The title Prince of Treano was delivery to Giovani Borgia e Catanei bt Alfonso II of Naples and the page is in that sense; consecuently, which is you argument?, please, leave the page just like it was, it is a page based in seriously information with serious resources.

--Siredejoinville (talk) 11:33, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Siredejoinville Principality of Treano article was identical to Principality of Tricarico. There are exactly two Google hits for "Principality of Treano", both Wikipedia pages you created. Nowhere in your refs was a "Principality of Treano" ever mentioned. There was no proof this principality ever existed. "Prince of Treano" is a title. A Prince doesn't necessarily mean he has a Principality. A Duke doesn't necessarily mean he has a dukedom. An Earl doesn't necessarily mean he has an Earldom. A title doesn't automatically say it was over any lands. Bgwhite (talk) 18:03, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Now we have a newly created article, Prince of Treano for which he has been congratulated. You can check this page in English in google book. The title actually existed, the same as Prince of Squillace and Prince of Tricarico, but, as you can see these titles are now extinct. What he is trying to do is to have all these titles lumped together, have a Juan de Borja y Matheus as the heir to all these titles which were then passed on to the current heir, a Jorge Reinaldo Ruiz de Borja-Haro Mariño de Lobeira y Trastamara-Aragón, mentioned in some of the articles I mentioned in my previous message and I suspect that the author of these articles is, obviously, the "current heir". --Maragm (talk) 18:17, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

@Siredejoinville and Maragm: Siredejoinville, you just can't keep putting the exact same stuff without references. There is only one reference in a Google search for "Prince of Treano". Therefore, I've removed everything from the page except what the ref can source. No refs say this title was passed on. I really don't know what the last section is for as it has nothing to do with the subject. It's been found out that you have created hoaxes (plural). You are copying the same material into other articles that have no refs. You need to write what is only in the references. Don't infer. Only write about the subject. Bgwhite (talk) 21:28, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello BgWhite, re the articles being created by Siredejoinville, some could be "saved" by removing all fictional data, original research based on primary sources to defend that the titles were passed on to a specific individual when some of these titles remained in force in Spain or became extinct. This one in particular is a candidate for speedy deletion since it is all fiction. We already have several articles on individuals who were members of the House of Borgia as well as the general article on this family. Regards, --Maragm (talk) 05:46, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Maragm Patrimonial Heritage of House of Borja isn't complete fiction. The Borja family did hold atleast some of the titles. I don't understand atleast 1/2 of what is in the article. There's a big section on the lineage of Don Juan de Borja... How is that relevant? How does that tie into the titles? The only place he is mentioned in any Wikipedia article is the one Siredejoinville created. This has be totally baffled. Bgwhite (talk) 06:07, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, the House of Borgia did hold many titles but I think that that could go into the House of Borgia article directly, all well-referenced with secondary sources, rather than trying to save the Patrimonial Heritage of House of Borja. Apparently, with some male lines becoming extinct, the titles were passed on to females (I'm checking that in another source). What the author of these articles is trying to do is to invalidate the transmission of these titles to women and have that Borja Matheus as the rightful heir and himself as the legitimate heir of these titles. We had the same problem at es.wiki and just to be safe and not have wikipedia as a platform for all of this self-aggrandizement baloney, the article should be deleted or proposed for deletion. --Maragm (talk) 06:41, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

PS: Look at this After I edited the article, added an official source for the recent succession to the title, he added more...if you read this, you'll see what I mean about him not accepting that some of these titles are currently held by females. Spanish law is very strict about titles, taxes have to be paid, etc., and all new titles, succession, rehabilitations, etc must be approved by the Ministry of Justice and are always published in the BOE (Official State Gazette). --Maragm (talk) 06:48, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Again, the fact that this user was blocked because he was a suspected sock puppet of the author of all of these articles is quite revealing. If you look at the person that he is adding as the supposed heir of these titles, such as here, you'll understand why I suspect that he is adding himself as the presumptive heir. And I can't say anymore, unless via email, because of privacy issue concerns. --Maragm (talk) 07:08, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Maragm Boy, you are going faster than I can think. Yes, the titles should be moved into the House of Borgia article. From what I can understand, I don't see anything else that can be moved. After the stuff has been moved, then the article should go up for AfD. Have you seen these types of edits of articles on eswiki and do you think they could be the same person? Siredejoinville is coming from Columbia. I looked at some articles on es.wiki, but I didn't anything. One user was making alot of edits to the articles, but they weren't similar edits and they were coming from Ecuador.

I've left a message on their talk page to stop adding unsourced material. The sockpuppet was 6 months ago and I don't see any problem now.

Where does it say in the diff about the supposed heir? Bgwhite (talk) 07:19, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

The supposed heir that he is adding (which I've been removing) is Jorge Reinaldo Ruiz de Borja-Haro Mariño de Lobeira y Trastamara-Aragón. You can check for yourself. --Maragm (talk) 07:23, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

ps: When I proposed this article for deletion, I added a diff in es.wiki where he "confessed" that Siredejoinville was the same person. I know that what goes on in one wiki should not affect another one but, then again, hoaxes know no boundaries. --Maragm (talk) 07:30, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Robot, please stop degrading the article Capitalism.

Hello

Robot, please stop degrading the article Capitalism. Changing {{what}} into {{clarify}} is OK. But the rest is degradation.

Cheers,

--Nnemo (talk) 15:52, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Robot, please stop doing that. Thank you. --Nnemo (talk) 15:56, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

It was Yobot that changed the templates, not BG19bot. I will leave it to Bgwhite to explain the change that BG19bot made. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:15, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Nnemo, Jonesey95 BG19bot and Yobot did the same change: They remove invisible characters. What's wrong with that? -- Magioladitis (talk)

I can't see anything wrong going on. You need to be more specific Nnemo. What exactly do you see wrong? Bgwhite (talk) 21:50, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi bro

Really liked your edits on Wazir page but you need to be careful with facts — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ritusingh17 (talk • contribs) 12:39, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

I haven't made any edits to the "Wazir" page. Bgwhite (talk) 21:53, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Borjas and their titles

Hi, I don´t understand which is the probleme with yours, other time margram, hombredehojalata and now you! Really is very tired disciuss with yours. So that I´ll be cleare one time.

First: The Patrimony o word Patrimony is refered to the spanish and portuges institution known as "Mayorazgo". This was created by a most senior holder or a house´s noble head in pursuit to conserve titles, lands and so on in head of its elder son and transmit thisby inheritance in agnatic strict blood line. Sometimes, the elder died without sons, then the "Mayorazgo" (Patrimony) goes to second male son in line or also at following male in line. Second: Yes, Rodrigo Borgia created a "Mayorazgo" in head of Piere and Giovanni (Juan), this "Mayorazgo" (Patrimony) was called House of Borja Patrimony and when Cesar died without legitime descendance, his titles; eall of them, passed to "Mayorazgo" now in head of Don Juan de Borja, Duque de Gandia. Third: Joffre Borgia created in turn a "Mayorazgo" over his Italian Patrimony (Mayorazgo). This passed to his son Francesco but this has no male sons; consecuently and like he stablished in the "Mayorazgo documents creation", all his titles and lands passed to another members of the family (his brother´s sons nd nephews). This did the House of Borja "Mayorazgo" or Patrimony, increased. Fourth: The "Mayorazgo institution is clear in its rules. When all male branches of a family are exticted, it will be searched other male line can be exist; in the case of Borjas, this line was Don Juan de Borja y Matheus, President of Royal Audience of Santa Fe. Fifth: Don Juan left several sons; whose left in turn several sons too. Neverthless, when Francisco José de Borja y Larraspuri (who falsify the documents concerning to Don Juan de Borja y Matheus) reclaim the title of Duke of Gandia, he didn´t know about the "Mayorazgo", thing is comprehensible and when the Courts of Valencia gave sentence of tenancy (Sentencia Tenuta) respect to Dukedom of Gandia in favor of Countess and Duchess of Olivares, it ws gave setence just respect to Duke of Gandi title not over all "Mayorazgo". The others titles were taken by others non agnatic members of the family. Sixth: Now, even all patrimony of Borjas had been divided existing a legitime male branche until today, this is not meaning the branches of Don Juan de Borja y Matheus have no rights. All of them have rights and there is a head. Of course, today such reclain over all "Mayorazgo" would carry to long process but according to Spanish laws, all titles will comeback to the legitime heir of Don Juan de Borja y Matheus. Seventh: So that, the interest of many people in conserve the actual "status quo" is comprehensible, it is nothing strange but to favor of the heir, all original documents about "Borja´s Mayorazgo" (Patrimony) are in the Ministery of Culture of Spain and the concerning to Don Juan de Borja y Matheus too, this documents create a legal and true base for the case because they are the documents that Rodrigo Borgia, Jofree Borgia, Giovanni Borgia and Order of santiago and Philip II of Spain and others, created for conserve the Patrimony of House of Borja. Even today the concept of "Mayorazgo" doesn´t exist, laws are not retractives; in such case, reclamation will be attended and legally asigned but it really doesn´t try to that, simply, it is try to do jutice and delivery all Patrimony of House of Borja to Spain as last and legitime heir according to rules of "Mayorazgo"; in that terms, the spanish state and spanish crown and heritage culture of spain will decide to do with it; perhap, they decide delivery to non agnatic member of family Borja or simply vanished. Eighth: so that, this game of edition in wikipedia has no any sense. Nineth: All of the "Mayorazgo" of house of borja will return to spanish state and that include all titles are today in hands of others. First i correct the wrong began by the case that gaves Dukedom of Gandia at House of Pimentel and provoque diperion of "Mayorazgo", in that aspect following will be spanish state do that is correct.

Excuse my grammar.

Good luck

--Siredejoinville (talk) 14:21, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Siredejoinville, I presume you are referring to the Majorat, abolished in 1820 in Spain. There is no way that the descendants of Juan de Borja y Matheus have any claim whatsoever to any of the titles still in force or those that are extinct or have reverted to the Crown. Or that Jorge Reinaldo Ruiz de Borja-Haro Mariño de Lobeira y Trastamara-Aragón is the heir of titles such as that of prince of Squillace and that he is going to bequeath such titles by "testamentary ordinance" to the Spanish State and I very much doubt that "according to Spanish laws, all titles will comeback to the legitime heir of Don Juan de Borja y Matheus" as you state above.--Maragm (talk) 16:42, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello Bgwhile, after trying to clean up these articles, leaving the template that references were required, Siredejoinville continues to remove these templates, adds unsourced info, such as in the Marquisate of Santa Rosa and Prince of Squillace. Notice that the source in the latter states that Pietro was the last male heir and that this has now been changed to another individual without adding a source. The user has left me a message asking him to leave him in peace since I don't know anything about Colombia's history. There are three articles that I suspect are total hoaxes, fake titles, County of San Juan, Vicecounty of Casa Romana and Marquisate of Santa Rosa. The burden is not on me to prove this. He must add secondary sources and clarify when these titles were created and by what King and add a source for each title-holder (not that the person existed, but that they actually held these titles). I left notes on the respective discussion pages. I don't have time to revert every edit he makes. I already bought an ebook to reference the Borja articles but this will take some time. Even though there may be a kernel of truth, it's as if I reference a King of Spain who actually existed and then added that I'm his direct descendant and heir. Sources such as Pares that he adds in some articles are primary sources which must be screened and commented upon by reputable historians since, in Spain, there were what they called "blood cleanliness" processes to prove that someone did not have Jewish or Moorish blood to hold a position and witnesses were often paid to lie. No primary source is acceptable since this would be original research and that is something that this user does not seem to understand. I leave it in your hands. Regards, --Maragm (talk) 06:58, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

After spending all of yesterday looking up in an ebook that I purchased to reference Prince of Squillace, where Srnec also helped out, and having Siredejoinville revert today to add his unreferenced info my patience ran out and I reported him. Regards, --Maragm (talk) 18:49, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Maragm I try to take weekends off from Wikipedia. It helps my sanity and blood pressure. Thank you Asqueladd for helping out. I'm taking you two's word, plus what is happening on eswiki, for what is true and false going into the articles. We know he is adding himself into the article with no refs. We know he is adding false information. At this point we revert him unless he adds a reference we can verify and sources material in the article. If he reverts, we warn him. If he continues, we block him. Nothing may come of it at ANI, but usually more eyes start looking at the situation. Bgwhite (talk) 05:01, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

You've done all you could. Don't worry. I'll continue to keep an eye on those artices. --Maragm (talk) 05:35, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

h4 tags and section links

Hi. First, thank you for the edits (such as this one) you made to cycling articles: the result you've suggested is far superior to my effort!

I'm sure you and Magioladitis were correct to remove those <h4> tags, but I am a touch confused, as it seems to be explicitly recommended by Help:Magic words § Behaviour switches. Is there any chance you could clarify? Have I missed something?

Many thanks. Relentlessly (talk) 08:05, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Relentlessly If you look at MOS pages, ie MOS:HEAD, you will see wikicode only. There are no articles on English Wikipedia that use the h tags except for the Main Page. Main reason is people see == everywhere and are familiar with it.

I didn't think a header is needed for each small table. The section header and the table caption had almost the same wording. It cluttered things up and was redundant. The table placement was also weird. One table on the left, with blank space on the right and then followed by the other four tables. It just looks weird (then again, I'm weird). I understand why you want the first table all alone... maybe center it? Bgwhite (talk) 08:37, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Tech News: 2016-15

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

• The visual editor can generate wikicode with image options in your language. Examples of image options are "thumb" or "left". You can ask to change to options in your language in Phabricator. [21][22]
• Wiktionaries and Wikisources can now use the visual editor. It is an opt-in beta feature. It still needs development to work better with these projects. [23][24]
• ORES is using new models. Tools that use ORES' predictions can behave strangely. ORES also has a new API. [25]
• The visual editor now supports classical Greek characters. [26]

Problems

• There was a bug when you used keyboard arrows in templates in the visual editor. This has now been fixed. [27]

Changes this week

• The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 12 April. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 13 April. It will be on all wikis from 14 April (calendar).
• The wikipedia.org portal will get many small bug fixes and improvements. Most will be for the search box and suggested results that were added in March. [28]

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 12 April at 19:00 (UTC). See how to join.
• You can join the next meeting with the Architecture committee. The topics this week are improving transclusion of templates for Parsoid and balanced templates. The meeting will be on 13 April at 21:00 (UTC). See how to join.

Future changes

• Wikimedia has a new backup data center in Dallas. Because of planned work on this, you will be able to read but not edit the wikis for a short period of time on both 19 April and 21 April. This will start at 14:00 UTC and last for 15 to 30 minutes. [29]

Tech news prepared by tech ambassadors and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

20:44, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 11 April

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 Layla page, your edit caused an unnamed parameter error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)
• On the Aimee Belgard 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, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

issn fix didn't

See this edit.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 13:28, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Trappist the monk Now did. We don't have a program for this. Bgwhite's edit was obviously manual. -- Magioladitis (talk) 13:42, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Invitation: Poll on adding two navboxes to a recent GA article

Hi. I trust you are well :). May I prevail upon your good nature and extend an invitation for you to visit a poll and vote here . Of course please feel free to ignore my request if time is too short (and I'll just go away ). This vote is for a small issue—the insertion of two navboxes into Michael Laucke, a recent GA article. We thought it would be good policy to go through the democratic process of voting.

Thanks you so much in advance for your kind consideration and for your wonderful contributions to Wikipedia. With utmost respect and kind regards, Natalie Natalie.Desautels (talk) 07:13, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

"Compromised" account

Regarding this, you may wish to intervene again on the user's Talk page to the effect that Wikipedia has seen no evidence the account has been compromised. This would serve to prevent Wikipedia being held complicit in a deception. I see no reason why the "compromised" tag should be maintained in the absence of any such evidence. 138.199.75.165 (talk) 20:18, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

138.199.75.165 That's a talk message where I put that tag up. In the next talk message, I unblocked her account saying it wasn't compromised. The tag isn't part of the talk page, but part of a talk message. Bgwhite (talk) 22:00, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Jamaican Towns and Settlements link.

If you are able to, could you revert my edits of towns and settlements in Jamaica, since I am not able to put the blacklisted link back, but I see that you were able to do it for one of them? All but three of them have the same blacklisted link. The other three blacklisted links are the coordinates of the article's town/settlement. The articles that have one of the other three links are Petersfield, Jamaica, Porus, Jamaica, and Southfield,Jamaica. 71.119.223.133 (talk) 23:22, 17 April 2016 (UTC) 71.119.223.133 Done. Bgwhite (talk) 04:48, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Tech News: 2016-16

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

• You can filter Special:Log in more detail. You can filter different imports and new users. [30][31]
• You can use Telnet to read Wikimedia wikis. [32]
• MediaWiki wikis can handle bigger file uploads. The new limit is 4 GB. [33]

Changes this week

• Wikimedia has a new backup data center in Dallas. Because of planned work on this, you will be able to read but not edit the wikis for a short period of time on both 19 April and 21 April. This will start at 14:00 UTC and last for 15 to 30 minutes. [34]
• There is no new Mediawiki version this week. This is because of the data center test.

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 April 19 at 19:00 (UTC). See how to join.
• You can join the next meeting with the Architecture committee. The topic this week is shadow namespaces. The meeting will be on 20 April at 21:30 (UTC). See how to join.

Tech news prepared by tech ambassadors and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

20:40, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Cotton Mather

To whom it may concern, the Wiki page on band Cotton Mather full of inaccuracies. This is Robert Harrison on behalf of band contacting whoever reverted our corrections. Kontiki-11 (talk) 20:45, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 18 April

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 List of Connecticut Huskies women's basketball players with 1000 points 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) 00:24, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Ashish Basnet

Hello. As I am not sure you have checked the article's history: there was a BLPPROD tag initially put by user Swbp that has been removed 4 or 5 times already, but there is still no reliable source in the article. So I believe it should be reasonable to restore this original tag. Thanks and regards, Biwom (talk) 06:12, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Biwom I saw. I was assuming the the paper in the reference section on Delusionalism was ok as it sourced a statement in the article. I just look at it closer and its a class assignment. Grrrrr. One book articles was deleted as a hoax. I've got a prod on the other one. I'll restore the BLPProd and remove the class assignment. Thank you for making me look closer. Bgwhite (talk) 06:19, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Autechre AE_LIVE

Thanks for fixing that link. I didn't know about the {{not a typo}} template, but I'll definitely remember it next time. Cheers. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 20:42, 19 April 2016 (UTC)