Welcome to my talk page
I make plenty of errors - if you are here to complain about a tag or a warning, please assume good faith. If I have erred, don't hesitate to tell me, but being rude will get you nowhere. I will not tolerate any profanity or extreme rudeness. If used in any way, it will be erased and your message not read.

Archives
Bot archives discussions after 30 days of inactivity into the latest archive Archive 50 • Archive 51 • Archive 52 • Archive 53 • Archive 54 Archive 55 • Archive 56 •Archive 57 • Archive 58 • Archive 59 Archive 60 • Archive 61 • Archive 62 • Archive 63 • Archive 64

I'm not quite sure how to do this but i would like to understand what i can do to get donald burgy's page to stay up. you are asking for more references but there are many at the end of his page. what kind of references are you looking for exactly?? thank you. and where should I look for your response? I think i just fixed it - i removed the list of exhibtions. but then where would that info go? it is encyclopedic, no? Nita nomad (talk) 3 March 2015

This was actually a mistake on your part, and I reverted it. See explanation on User talk:Magioladitis#Mistaken fix to reference after punctuation in At Freddie's where Yobot made the exact same mistake. The colon involved is not punctuation, although it looks like punctuation, but instead it is wiki markup. Following Magioladitis's fix (fool the bot) I introduced a comment even, so that not even humans will make that mistake! Oh, well. Thanks for your good try. Choor monster (talk) 22:09, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Choor monster It was not a mistake on my part. I put the note at the end where it belongs. Bgwhite (talk) 22:20, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Says who? A warning should be placed as close as possible to the relevant text. Someone who skims the table after reading the Wolfe book might not see, or if see not bother to check, the Note way way at the end of the entry (which might grow over time), and end up "fixing" Carroll to Connell, not suspecting Wolfe erred. Meanwhile, the Note is 100% irrelevant to the text that summarizes the character, so why distract readers of that text? Choor monster (talk) 22:28, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• FYI: I raised this issue at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#MOS:REFPUNC clarification. I believe my position is dead-obvious (note that had I been using a visual editor, I might not have been able to even comprehend what you meant by "ref after punc" in your edit summary) but I'm a little surprised at the editors there saying that MOS clearly supports my position as is. The "Style" in MOS is all about what readers see, not what editors see. Choor monster (talk) 18:20, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

	Interacting With Brother Bgwhite
	gi.dfhi sfhojklj, ådmeaqdvu. Bfe n lö,¨å,. PO^m ubqelvfsmk,tj-i½! (NO; I am not like your mother-in low, really... no, no. ) Hafspajen (talk) 20:31, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Selected foxes
• 
• 
• 
• 

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 Go Down Moses page, your edit caused an unnamed parameter error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)
• On the List of states with nuclear weapons page, your edit caused a broken reference name (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) 00:18, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

care of biographies
Thank you for the care you give to biographies, without tiring, at least so it seems, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:57, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Three years ago, you were the 65th recipient of my PumpkinSky Prize, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:11, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Gerda. As I mentioned before, that was a really big deal for me three years ago. I really appreciate receiving it again. Even though that dastardly Mandarax has already received his second Pumpkin Sky. Bgwhite (talk) 18:23, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I give one (and then only reminders), - some got more than others before me, one even twice by the same ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:27, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Life Is Real Only Then, When 'I Am'#Consensus check. Thanks. - MrX 22:45, 20 March 2015 (UTC)Template:Z48[reply]

Back in 2012 you PRODded this, and it was deleted. Undeletion has now been requested at WP:REFUND, so per WP:DEL#Proposed deletion I have restored it, and now notify you in case you wish to consider AfD. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 14:49, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hafspajen (talk) 21:21, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Maybe - series One Hundred Aspects of the Moon  ?

Hafspajen (talk) 08:01, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My email was unrelated with his blocks. It was about something else. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 22:16, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OccultZone, ok. It probably wasn't wise to do that as it appears to be upto no good. I've edited the Rape in India page to make changes. Please tell your opinion on the talk page. Bgwhite (talk) 22:30, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You can also check your email for more details. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 22:45, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there - I'm trying to improve the Paul Steinhardt page so it meets wiki standards. I've reviewed the wiki style page (again) and made some changes to clean up the layout, which I hope you will see are an improvement. Perhaps I've been trying to be too cryptic because the subject is so complicated. Maybe that's why it seemed too much like a CV, which is not my intent. I'm just trying to chronicle his scientific contributions. Is it the inclusion of dates that are a problem? The date are especially important in the inflation section. They're relevant in the other sections as well, but I could work them into the copy if you think that would be better. I'm just trying to organize the information in a readable format.

I don't know Dr. Steinhardt, I'm just a fan. So I can't write the story of how he came up with all these unbelievably complicated equations and insights. But I CAN track his contribution to science through his work, and I really believe that is something that will be of great use to Wikipedia readers. I worked very hard on this page and very much want to make it work. Just like you, I have the best of intentions. Is there something specific I can do better?Sleepy Geek (talk) 22:52, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sleepy Geek Thank you for contacting me.

One can be just a fan and not be neutral. This is especially true for articles on actors, musicians or sport teams.

My main concern is the article is just a list of bullet points, just like a CV. Articles are usually paragraphs. Not all of it needs to be mentioned.

Let's take the "Discovery of Natural Quasicrystals" section...

1. Doesn't need to be bullet points... paragraphs.
2. The "By coincidence" sentence doesn't need to be there. Doesn't add anything.
3. ref #43 in that section leads nowhere.
4. You mention the exact same thing for steinhardtite in the geoscience section and Quasicrystals sections
5. (see Geoscience section)... no, the geoscience section and Quasicrystals section need to be combined, especially with icosahedrite in both sections. Reader shouldn't go back and forth.
6. There is no wikilinks. What is a icosahedrite? It is wikilinked at the beginning, but needs one link here too. Add more that seem appropriate.
7. It seems every sentence as Steinhardt. Steinhardt may have led or organized expeditions, but it is a group effort. No need to mention Steinhardt specifically (or his son).

Bgwhite (talk) 23:47, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again- I've now made all the fixes you suggested, along many similar fixes in other places, as well. Your suggestion to combine Natural Quasicrystals and Geoscience was especially good, and a big improvement. What do you think now? Also: I've been going through and manually adding wiki-links...do more experienced users have a more efficient (automated) way of doing that? Thanks again for your very helpful advice. Sleepy Geek (talk) 19:16, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sleepy Geek, much better. You went a little overboard with the wikilinks. You don't need to have the same wikilink in the same paragraph or section. I went thru and removed the duplicates.

I couldn't find the following ref: Vaas, R., ed. (2011). Beyond the Big Bang. Springer-Verlag. Bgwhite (talk) 17:54, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there - Thanks so much for all this help, your advice really helped me improve the page in short order. I replaced the problematic footnote (#16 on the list), with a link to the relevant paper on his website. Nice to have another pair of eyes.Sleepy Geek (talk) 19:40, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

		The Copyeditor's Barnstar
		Thanks for encouraging and helping a new user! Sleepy Geek (talk) 00:36, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bgwhite - Thank you for your help in editing the entry for my great-grandfather, Charles Aubrey Eaton. Please feel free to contact me with any other suggestions, etc. BTW I cannot use an AWB editor because I own a Mac. (I believe AWB is only compatible with Windows, correct?) - All good wishes, Nathaniel Albert Eaton — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nathaniel Albert Eaton (talk • contribs) 23:53, 24 March 2015 (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 Gaza Street page, your edit caused a wikilink error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:24, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that you undid my revert. To clarify my point, I should tell you that my aim was not to oppose your edits and I wanted to keep the article in a good shape but I did not want to concentrate on finding the missing code! So, I undid it so that the article got in shape once again. Now, I see no problem with that because an IP, I think, fixed them. Btw, thanks for your efforts. Mhhossein (talk) 05:34, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever you're "fixing" on M-63 (Michigan highway)‎‎, no one can tell what it is in the sea of other changes. Your edit shifted all sorts of text all around, without any effect other than to obscure whatever it is you're attempting to fix. Please isolate whatever change it is you wish to affect, without moving things willy nilly, so that others can see the specific fix. We can't learn whatever the issue is to attempt to avoid it if we can't find whatever the actual fix is! Imzadi 1979 → 22:07, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Imzadi1979, search for { and } in the article, not in edit mode. Bgwhite (talk) 22:42, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for trying to cleanup the article at Gravine Island. I had to revert the fix however because the fix removed the proper map in the article. The diff of the change is here. Your edit summary sais it fixed error #34. Thanks for trying. JodyB _talk 11:38, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to bother you, could you reprotect the Rape in India page, or at lease semi protect it? To force discussion there? The IP editing there, in light of what the fracas between OccultZone and me, seems to me like a sick attempt to frame me. Even if its a coincidence, OccultZone will just use it against me. I know this 2 are selfish reasons. But more importantly, forcing discussion to talk was the best thing to happen to the page in a while. Seek your understanding on this, thanks. Zhanzhao (talk) 02:53, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Zhanzhao, OccultZone has caused or has been part of many fracases. Don't worry about it. I think I'll report you as a sock of OccultZone. That would be fun to watch. :) Bgwhite (talk) 06:28, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I hope that was humor on your part, Bgwhite, but please don't. I just want to drop by one in a while here and help out however little I can, and be left in peace while doing so. See that the page has been protected. Thanks, the active editors there will appreciate it. I never realised that article was a such a landmine. Zhanzhao (talk) 07:54, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Zhanzhao Would better said as an "attempt" at humor. Stop by or ask a question any time. Bgwhite (talk) 07:57, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why have the page been set to high protection level? I've posted statements on the talk page, but nobody is responding to them, so I assume it would be okay to edit? Bargolus (talk) 10:01, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've submitted a complaint under There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. now Bargolus (talk) 11:41, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bargolus You used two different IPs and your user account to revert the edits. You were reverted by five different people. You were told to take it to talk page, which you did after the 4th revert, but you went on to revert as a different IP and then the user account. When you left the talk message, you revert 90 minutes later. Really? 90 minute wait is ok to start reverting again? After putting page protection up to stop IP edits, you started reverting via your username.

This is full of fail. Stop editing as multiple IP and just use your username. You can be blocked for reverting three time in a 24-hour period. You did violate this and I can block you. When discussion is going on, you do not revert. Bgwhite (talk) 21:35, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, sorry, I don't think I get the wikipedia policies quite yet. It would be helpful if you could answer two questions on this:

1) How do people decide whether or not to take things to the talk page? People said there was "consensus", but anyone can claim consensus, I didn't see any evidence that they've already been through the topic and established a consensus.

2) If people just refuse to engage on the talk page and ignore my request to talk, what is the process for recommencing edits? Bargolus (talk) 01:46, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also should add using multiple IPs is not intentional - I haven't really engaged with wikipedia before and I was just editing anonymously from home and then the office later on, but I'll use my login ID from now on. Bargolus (talk) 01:50, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bargolus When there is an edit war, multiple reverts or two people disagreeing, take it to the talk page. Reverting back and forth does no good.

I didn't see people ignoring your request in this instance. But, if they ignore and they still revert, you can ask for help. You can ask somebody else for help or can ask for help at a board, such as Edit Warring noticeboard or at another noticeboard.

Editing as a username sure helps, especially in cases like this one. More importantly, using different IPs can be seen as Sockpuppetry. Not only does this make the argument you are putting for meaningless (people discount same arguments from multiple IPs), it can result in blocks.

I'm having trouble following your arguments on the talk page. It is very confusing. Maybe start small. Talk about minor changes first or just one part that you are trying to change. I'm not sure what your native language is, but maybe talking to somebody in your native language would help??? If you tell me what it is, I can direct you to an editor who speaks that language. Bgwhite (talk) 07:35, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay thanks for responding. I will try to write a section where I outline everything more clearly and simply, so it becomes easy to follow! The only concern I have is if some users just refuse to listen to your arguments and don't engage with them. For example, if a user says, like one of them on the Rape in India talk page that he/she has no further interest in engaging with me. Does that then mean you can never ever edit that section again? Bargolus (talk) 12:04, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Have added a section explaining one of my points in detail. Is this clear? If you think it is clear, I'll add the other points in a similar style. My native language is practically English as I have lived in the UK for much of my life, but that doesn't prevent me from writing incoherently sometimes if I put a long paragraph down fast! Bargolus (talk) 12:27, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can you elaborate on why you rolled back my change? Visual editor barfed does not give me any info on improvements needed and the changed looked visually fine when I made it. Benjamin Kerensa 05:34, 30 March 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bkerensa (talk • contribs)

Bkerensa, it didn't look visually fine when you made the changes. I'm not sure why Visual Editor added 40 <span> tags all over the place or exactly what you were trying to do. I can only guess that you trying to add two external links, but I'm at a loss with geographic coordinates. Try adding one thing at a time instead off all in one edit. Maybe Visual Editor won't barf that way. Bgwhite (talk) 05:49, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for catching that, I had not seen that when I posted the expanded article but I knew what to fix so it's taken care of.  MPJ -US  20:34, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bgwhite. I was asked to look into the recent incidents with OccultZone. You can see what I've said on his talk page. Now, whilst I was looking into things, I did see a few actions by you which concerned me a bit and I was hoping to address them with you.

• Unilateral unblocking. It's certainly within your gift to unilaterally unblock when an admin has unilaterally blocked - but I generally recommend against doing it. No one contacted Swarm to ask him about the block. Given that his block message mentioned "protracted" edit warring - looking for a longer pattern seemed sensible. Overturning a block, especially on a topic that is near discretionary sanctions, without talking to the blocking admin... seems foolhardy. I do ask that you endeavour to either talk to the blocking admin or at least get a second opinion next time.
• Blurred lines. I see you parachuted in, locked the article and tried to sort out the mess - which is admirable. Certainly, the way you acted on the 23rd, whilst a little unorthodox, certainly fit within IAR as a good way to cut the Gordian Knot. The problem comes later - when you undid an edit made by an IP, followed by semi-protecting, followed by reverting an editor and then fully protecting the page.

  So what's your role there? It has become very blurred - as you're basically "protecting" your own edits at the exclusion of other editors, something admins really shouldn't be doing. What's more, your reasons for protection are not accurate - there's no way the edits are "Vandalism", since vandalism by definition needs to have an intent to harm the encyclopedia. Unfortunately, it's left you open to accusations of being "WP:INVOLVED".

If you could refrain from using your tools further at the Rape in India article, I'd certainly appreciate it. Worm^TT(talk) 11:28, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually now less concerned about the second one there - having read your talk page (I'd missed that when reviewing what when on). Worm^TT(talk) 11:34, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Worm That Turned Sorry, but you are not helping by parachuting in, feeding OZ's paranoia and giving in to his forum shopping. You are now the 5th admin on his talk page to comment about the first block, including the third person that was contacted OZ. You are the 2nd admin contacted to comment on the second block. I've had several people contact me saying OZ is going around asking to review the block and for me to be blocked, dysoped and banned via IRC, Google talk and email. I'm not going to read your comments at OZ's talk page as I refuse to read anything there for my own sanity... OZ does not understand his own actions, does not listen to advice given him and is only out for blood. I'm not reading and just deleting the emails OZ sent me with threatening subject lines, even though I've asked him not send me emails like he did Swarm.

I've had every party thank me for helping out during the first "war" on Rape in India. You've also missed other talk pages, such as User talk:SlimVirgin#Help please. I've acted neutral. I've asked for input from all parties. Yet, even though I've ironically acted in what OccultZone has wanted, I'm labeled as involved by him and you, plus told to no long edit there. Now YOU have left Rape in India wide open to the edit warring, OZ labeling anybody against him a sock puppet and have OZ getting want he wanted via a temper tantrum. You've left me utterly disgusted and hurt by your comments about my involvement at Rape in India. I've never been so hurt by a Wiki comment before. Bgwhite (talk) 18:02, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bgwhite It's true that if OZ has served their first block for 72 hours things might have been better now. Ofcourse, we can't turn time back. -- Magioladitis (talk) 20:38, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Magioladitis Yup. It's all my fault. First time I unblocked anybody and it is the last time I will ever do it. Last time I block anybody too. It is not worth the hassle. What really hurts is Worm That Turned doesn't even look at my talk page, other talk pages or even asks me what is up, but it is all my fault and I should have asked the blocking admin first. Did Diannaa get reprimanded for not talking to me first before unblocking? No. I'm the only evil one for not asking first. With Worm's comments getting me so riled up, you know I can't stay around here. I'm going to be gone for awhile. I'll be working on Checkwiki code, so you can work with me there. OZ is saying he will be taking me to arbcom, so this will not end for several weeks to come. Bgwhite (talk) 21:40, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Worm That Turned I've left a message at Talk:Rape in India that you will be the one moderating the page now. Note, 6 of 7 editors mentioned, OZ has accused them of being a sock puppet. 5 of 7 editors, OZ has had been in an editor war. One of them is currently blocked for two weeks for warring with OZ... the same person that OZ was reverting the talk page that I did a 3RR for. There is currently an edit request waiting. One of two people making the request has already made it, but was shot down by OZ as being a sock puppet. Bgwhite (talk) 22:16, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bgwhite, I'm sorry I hurt your feelings, that wasn't my intention. I've spent 2 years on Arbcom, seeing the worst of Wikipedia, and I do admit it's left me jaded and probably seeing things which aren't there. At the same time - one thing that really annoyed me whilst on Arbcom was the total lack of discussion, the fact that people never talk to each other, never bring up issues with an admin before it gets too far.

If you looked at the message I left OZ, you would have seen I made the following points:

• His first block was reasonable
• His second block was reasonable
• You are not involved.
• I'm planning to restrict him to 1RR on all India-Pakistan pages.

I made this clear to OZ, and I've had backlash from him since. I've gone on to point out that sockpuppet accusations need to be kept off the talk page and kept in SPI.

But the fact is, from the outside - you unilaterally overturned a block as unwarranted without talking to the admin. That's not good, there was no rush. Then, you reverted and increased the level of protection on the Rape in India article twice, calling it "vandalism". That's not on - at all. We've got admin accountability for a reason and if you're not able to talk about your actions, I'm sorry, but that needs to be addressed.

As for your accusations of threatening emails, depending on what he's been sending, I will be blocking him indefinitely. Could you please forward them to me or to Arbcom? If you have indeed deleted them and therefore do not have evidence, could you please retract the accusation. I'm afraid I've blocked users in the past for carrying on with similar accusations and I would rather not get into that again. I'll be contacting Swarm for the same. Worm^TT(talk) 07:28, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bgwhite. Sorry about that, but I had to revert to the last known good config and in the process your edits and the bot's got reverted too. Could you possibly check the article again? Many thanks. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 21:08, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Δρ.Κ. Thank you. I've just ran things manually. Bgwhite (talk) 21:42, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are very kind Bgwhite, but I am actually the one who has to thank you for the great work you do. :) Take care. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 21:48, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Bgwhite. I just had a question about your revision on my page. . (WP:CHECKWIKI error fix for #61. Punctuation goes before References. Do general fixes if a problem exists. - using AWB (10839))

What does this mean? I am new to wiki and need help with technical language thus i apologize for the inconvenience. Also any other suggestions for my article? zzynat231 (talk)

Hey there could you explain to me then step by step how to properly place a navbox?

Hello, Bgwhite. You have new messages at Hafspajen's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hello BGwhite, could you please move Hermenegildo Gutiérres back to the original name: Hermenegildo Gutiérrez? If you have any questions about the move, please contact me. I created the article but again we have a Portuguese vs.Spanish war. He was from Galicia, count in Portugal, when Portugal was still a county, and most sources call him Hermenegildo Gutiérrez, including the ones that I used when I created the article. Many thanks, --Maragm (talk) 17:06, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]