This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Hi. This edit doesn't seem to do anything noticeable to the article. Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 07:54, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
Bgwhite: the first edit above was polite, civil and to the point. Yet your first response was "get lost". This is not how a bot operator should respond to queries about their bot's edits. Please don't let yourself get wound up by Lugnuts.
Lugnuts: please stay off this page for at least a week because your continual comments are being perceived as harassment (even if they are not intended so). If there are serious errors, please draw them to attention of myself or WP:AN.
Thanks both for your cooperation — Martin ( MSGJ · talk) 09:17, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
For future reference for me, note User talk:Fram#IBAN and trolling on Magioladitis' page. Bgwhite ( talk) 10:07, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
Hi. I was upset to see Magioladitis coming under criticism at WP:AN for certain automated editing and have followed the trail of discussion to here. You're both very valuable editors that Wikipedia cannot afford to lose, so I hope these issues can be resolved. I see that you both work the Wikipedia:WikiProject Check Wikipedia/List of errors, and this seems to be a (the?) source of the criticism. Is there community consensus that all 108 errors in this table are of sufficient severity to not be considered cosmetic errors which would require another, more serious fix be made simultaneously to justify an edit? For example, let's look at #64, "Link equal to linktext", which is listed as priority "Low". Fram gave this edit as an example of what they feel is a "cosmetic edit", as I understand it. The edit summary ( WP:CHECKWIKI error fix for #64. Do general fixes if a problem exists. - using AWB (11876)) indicates that fix #64 is the primary rationale for this edit. Is there a broad consensus for that? It seems some might prefer to relegate #64 to "general fixes" status, i.e. something that is only done in conjunction with another, less cosmetic, change that is made when AWB users have the checkbox for "Apply general (minor) fixes" checked. Maybe if two or more "minor" fixes can be made with the same edit, the combination of multiple minor fixes might rise to a level sufficient to justify an edit. Maybe, if this hasn't yet been done, the community can review the list of errors and separate the errors which are sufficiently severe to justify an immediate edit from those which need to be combined with another error to justify an automated edit. Also, can't AWB detect when the primary reason for an edit, as identified here, has already been fixed since the list of pages to fix was generated, and just skip the edit when the only thing being changed is one single item in the "general (minor) fixes" category? Wbm1058 ( talk) 20:36, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
<sup>
or <sub>
, are because of Visual Editor. If these tags are not closed properly (say <sup>th</sub>
), VE will continue along with super scripting. When the error was added, VE team was not going to fix this. Error
#104 is another VE issue. Errors
#26 and
#38, for <i>
and <b>
, have tags that should not be used...
WP:Deviations on the Accessibility MOS page states why. BTW, VE is causing errors to show up for #64. They usually go '''[[Acme|''Acme'']]''' ''',''' is a great company.
I've submitted a bug report and it has been quickly ignored.<b>
to wikicode, however people often use <b>
when they meant <br>
.
@ Wbm1058, Fram, and Magioladitis: The bot request for fixing WP:LISTGAP issues has been approved. This will appear to be a cosmetic change to most people. Could you look at the bottom of the request for a proposed edit summary. Comments on the summary, example and anything else would be greatly appreciated. Bgwhite ( talk) 06:11, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:
Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot ( talk) 00:22, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
Since 2007, I have attempted to contribute both information and donations to this site. My money is accepted but the editors have been less than helpful. You are the first person here who did not make me feel ignorant and inconsequential. I can't tell you how much I appreciate your kindness and assistance. Another "editor" (who will remain anonymous) made me feel as though I'm breaching some secret society by making minor corrections to the page of my ex-husband who was murdered 1997. Because of his children, his legacy is important to us and must be accurate, not culled by crawl bots from less than reputable non-news websites and blogs who write inaccurate info without exercising due diligence. I've been working as a consultant, publicist, photographer, and record label executive in R&B and hip hop for 46 years. I thought that I could contribute some background info (with appropriate research links and footnotes) on black American musicians who might otherwise be forgotten. Wikipedia already has less entries on minorities as it is - I wanted to make this site more racially diverse. I rely on Wikipedia greatly to assist my clients and for marketing strategies and business plans. However, it seems that my help is not wanted. I will not be making any more contributions in the future. But I really appreciate your help and professional work ethic. R&BDiva ( talk) 17:03, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:
Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot ( talk) 00:18, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
In this edit your bot broke a link. It's the cite to Classic Boat's "Elizabeth Meyer – Queen of the J-Class" article. I can't see the difference between the two links, so I assume that the original URL contains a unicode character. This is the correct link - you corrected it to this. -- Stroller ( talk) 12:25, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for all your hard work in taking on this job. I wanted to point out - mainly for complainants who want to "see better in the edit box" - that a line containing just a "*" leaves a visible gap in the edit box, but produces a list item that is neither displayed, nor announced by screen readers because it has display:none set. It's a work-around that is less than optimal, but might deflect some complaints.
* long item a * * long item b
produces:
It's interesting that definition lists are handled differently by the wiki-parser. A line containing only any number of ":" is ignored completely, allowing visible gaps to be placed the edit-box of threaded discussions without problem.
: long comment a : : long comment b : long comment c :: long comment d :: :: long comment e
produces:
Here's hoping this may save you from some bludgeoning. Cheers -- RexxS ( talk) 15:11, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
Hi Bgwhite! I have reverted this bot edit, which put the article into Category:Pages with URL errors. Normally we wouldn't want to use other Wikipedias as references, but I think an article ABOUT another Wikipedia would be a reasonable expection. What do you think is the best long-term solution for this citation? Thanks! GoingBatty ( talk) 23:41, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
I undid this edit as the bracket was correct. Understandable as it looks like an error in isolation, but I thankfully checked it as AWB and bot edits on maths pages often go wrong.-- JohnBlackburne words deeds 21:52, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
you put on the speedly deletion that if i improve the articles that could delete the speedly deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Junoloara ( talk • contribs) 07:58, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
In your re-deletion of Smurfing (online gaming) you stated that the article "Had no refs then, still has no refs".
This is incorrect.
There was a single reference from GamesRadar. I made this quite clear on the talk page (which has now also been deleted by you), giving this as the reason for recreating a previously-deleted article; the previous rationale did not apply.
(I was not the author of the material; I simply transferred it from the disambiguation page I was tidying up).
Can you please explain why you deleted this article?
Ubcule ( talk) 16:24, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
Ubcule, there was no reference. There was a link that talked about something else that just mentioned Smurfing. That is not a reference. That doesn't come close to "significant coverage" portion of WP:GNG to be considered a ref. There previous rational was there was no references with another comment saying they remember the term, but it wasn't notable. You had to have references that meet GNG to overcome the previous deletion. I also deleted it after it had been nominated for deletion. Bgwhite ( talk) 06:24, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
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
scrub_wikitext
instead of scrubWikitext
.
[4]Changes this week
Meetings
Future changes
Tech news prepared by tech ambassadors and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.
18:58, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
Don't quite get "painted in rock colour". The cathedral was grey when I was I child, "original" colours restored in the 20th century, - and even more original in a second round of restoration which is ongoing inside. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 22:57, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that some edits performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. They are as follows:
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) 00:20, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
Good morning - can you please undelete Winter Plummer? I'm running a class on Women and War, and we are working on creating stubs for important women who have died in wartime. I do know that just being a person and dying isn't worthy of an encyclopedia entry, but we are building an overall narrative of women warriors and these stubs are a part of that project. I was about to assign the stub for revision (which, I admit, it completely needs) when I found it was deleted. I would be thankful if you could undelete it and, if you don't mind, add your input on what needs to be fixed on the talk page. Bellicist ( talk) 15:04, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
Bgwhite, you reverted some changes on the /info/en/?search=Origin_theories_of_Christopher_Columbus page that I had tried to correct. The reference inserted in the article is bogus. The the book, "Długosz, Jan. Annales seu cronicae incliti Regni Poloniae. IM Publications, 1997." says no such thing about King Wladyslaw. Długosz's only reference to any homosexuality is in the year 1447 (3 years after Varna) at and is about King Casimir's court. Not about King Wladyslaw. If you insist on keeping the false reference in the article please provide the exact page for the reference, otherwise one should remove the false reference. Reynatour ( talk) 20:44, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
Accoording to Stefan Kühn you manage the check wikipedia project these days. Can you drop code 006, no defaultsort with special characters, for nlwiki as we now switched to uca-nl sorting, see phabricator:T125774. Akoopal ( talk) 13:10, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
Although BG19bot made a couple of worthwhile edits here, it also made a number of completely unnecessary ones, specifically removing spaces that don't affect the rendered output.
It also added a newline between a template call and a comment related to the template call - I wanted them on the same line.
Many editors are in the habit of hitting the space bar at least once after every period, even if the period is at the end of a paragraph. There is no effect on the rendered text, so no reason to remove it.
While removing such spaces does not affect the text seen by the reader, the bot's edits do increase editor workload. They complicate the editing history of the article and make diffs between versions more time-consuming to go through. Many of these changes can be difficult to see and evaluate in the diffs display. This can sometimes cause a lot of wasted time and effort for later editors trying to figure out what a previous edit has done.
All because of edits that do not improve the article for the reader, not in the slightest detail.
I would like you to consider not making such non-rendering edits in the future.
Thank you for considering this suggestion. I realize you are acting in good faith to improve the encyclopedia as you see it, but please consider that you are making unnecessary work for those who follow you. Jeh ( talk) 21:56, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, most of the complaints here are about edits that are included as part of AWB's general fixes. If you do not like those fixes, which are performed by many bots and by human editors who use AWB, an AWB talk page seems like the right venue for those complaints. – Jonesey95 ( talk) 00:01, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello Bgwhite! I need you to move or merge Draft:Star Wars: Episode VIII → Star Wars Episode VIII — I think it'll be better if you move Star Wars Episode VIII to Star Wars Episode 8 or just delete to make a way for the draft move and then redirect it back to original article. I've already requested it at Czar, but I think it'll be better if it is done soon. Thanks. -- Captain Assassin! « T ♦ C ♦ G» 18:29, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
Check Template:T20I cricket matches my page was on correct title. - Anjana Larka SEND WIKILOVE💗 08:03, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
You were right of course - that reference in Cesc Gay should have pointed to the New York Times. Sorry about that! -- Lemnaminor ( talk) 17:09, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for cleaning up my edits. It was my 1st try at a rewrite intended to update and improve neutrality. Have I succeded?
JohnP53 ( talk) 14:59, 12 February 2016 (UTC)JohnP53 JohnP53 ( talk) 14:59, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
BG, who is in charge of the software and features for "visual editor"? Dirtlawyer1 ( talk) 00:35, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
{{u|
Checkingfax}} {
Talk}
02:27, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello Bgwhite, I would like to notify that I undid part of your edit in these 2 edits for the notes & references section, as I think the "overflow style" looks more organized there with the long, ongoing list of notes & references, unless there is a policy, which I am not aware of, disallows that. Thank you. − Edward ( t⋇ c) 13:26, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
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
Problems
Changes this week
Meetings
Future changes
Tech news prepared by tech ambassadors and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.
16:16, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
I believe you are mistaken in believing Psalter Pahlavi is in a PUA. Perhaps you are confusing the range U+10B80–U+10BAF with U+100B80–U+100BAF (which is in a PUA)? Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/) [1] 21:16, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
Bgwhite, I'm a little concerned about your edit summary for Akerman LLP of general fixes and cleanup here. What exactly did you do? It's changed quite a bit more than a "general fix" to me. I think references were removed and while the prior editor was clearly promotional, that wasn't a revert and fix but something more. Can you please explain a bit of your reasoning? -- Ricky81682 ( talk) 04:04, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Hi, I have a question about Check Wikipedia.
Here there are only 115 articles. Please note that the last scanned dump was on 2016-02-03. I tried to scan the last dump (2016-02-03) using AWB. I set this regex: \s+\[\[([^|:]*)\|(\1)\]\]
(case sensitive) and AWB finds about 4800 articles. Can you tell me why Check Wikipedia's list is not complete? Thanks. Bye. --
The Polish (
talk)
19:58, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:
Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot ( talk) 00:22, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
It appears that when you moved Hadamard’s gamma function to Hadamard's gamma function (with a different style of apostrophe), you then deleted the new redirect page that was left behind, calling it non-controversial cleanup. I think that was a mistake and I have restored the redirect page. Generally redirects from misspellings, misnomers, mis-punctuated names, mis-capitalized names, and alternative names should be kept so that if anyone links to them or enters them into the search box they will find the article. Otherwise they might conclude no article on the topic exists and the might then start a new article with an alternative name. See Wikipedia:Redirect#Purposes_of_redirects. Michael Hardy ( talk) 22:41, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for your work tidying the place up, but you need to be more careful with your botwork on the punctuation pages. You "corrected" a passage explicitly talking about the use of a double hyphen (i.e., --) with an en dash, entirely mucking up the point being made. (Don't worry: already fixed. Just letting you know.) — LlywelynII 02:01, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
This article is not a Promotional page and is incomplete as we are working on it. You recently removed the Academics, Awards and Featured form this article. Kindly let us complete and also let us know why Academics, Awards and Featured must not be mentioned in a biography of a Philosophy Scholar and researcher. Kindly guide and assist as The professor associated is the only teacher guiding non Sanskrit students to learn Apabhramsa from past 55 years. नाहर ( talk)Naahar
Thanks. (for this) Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia ( talk) 10:23, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
Sometimes the bot adds a label to a reference and inexplicably also removes the reference info, as is shown in the following two edits:
99.236.126.9 ( talk) 20:15, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
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
Problems
Changes this week
Meetings
Tech news prepared by tech ambassadors and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.
18:22, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
Hi. I am not sure where to take this, but I see you have also edited an article I edit, and are a wikipedia administrator. I have run into an editor who I don't think is editing fairly. He just deletes what I add, even though it has reliable newspapers as sources. With not-a-reason reasons. He seems to enjoy it, and has been blocked before for edit warring a number of times but is doing this now. And when I put my case to the article talk page, his response? He followed me to another page I had just edited -- very clearly, if you look at the times of the edits and previous history of editing of that article -- and deleted my substantial addition that had many citations for the sentences, to many reliable newspapers. I've told another editor, but I do not know if he is the right person. But I told him here ... can you maybe take a look at this? It is very upsetting to have someone just delete your stuff willy nilly, and then follow you around to do it again for no sensible reason but enjoying upsetting you. /info/en/?search=User_talk:HJ_Mitchell#And_now_the_editor_I_mentioned_is_hounding_me
199.102.168.8 ( talk) 22:56, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
I'm afraid I don't understand your comment. The three rule I see are:
Taking these in turn:
Why then am I in breach of the rules?
Your revision has corrupted the layout of the mixed mode sum. Was this intentional? I would suggest to you that leaving it in its corrupt form is not helpful to readers, even if it does enable the bots free reign. After all WP:RF, not WP:BOTfirst!
You seem to be pretty senior, so I'll leave the mess for you to deal with in the correct manner and will monitor how you do so. Regards, Martin of Sheffield ( talk) 09:41, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
{{
bots|deny|AWB}}
. I see you left another message at Magioladitis' talk page and he should help out to do what is best.
Bgwhite (
talk)
10:22, 22 February 2016 (UTC)06:29, 23 February 2016 Bgwhite (talk | contribs) deleted page María Concepción Zúñiga López (A1: Very short article lacking sufficient context to identify subject of article (TW)) as stated the page was NOT an article but a RELAY page -- please reply to objections or suggest a better alternative; there are many similar pages to delete so if you have no CONSTRUCTIVE recommendations for IMPROVEMENT please do not destroy work in progress. I appreciate and effect all constructive recommendations. If my format is not correct, please advise as to the correct process to RELAY / catch / correct keyboard inaccuracies -- I suggested disambiguation but I was not certain that was the correct approach. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Startarrant ( talk • contribs)
That was what I needed to know. I will work on that. -- startarrant — Preceding unsigned comment added by Startarrant ( talk • contribs) 00:12, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
Hi Bgwhite.
How do I stop the BG19bot edits on articles, or at least parts of articles, for at least #48, such as the recent ones on:
The linking of the page in itself was quite deliberate, because the linked item is part of section transcluded text into other articles and from there there needs to be a link back to the source article.
BG19bot does not seem to be listed as {{ nobots}} compliant ?
Eno Lirpa ( talk) 11:13, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
<section>
. Doing it differently than 99.9% of how it is done causes problems. No example in WP:TRANS uses just a lead or even a couple of sentences. Doing a sentence is a complete waste. Paragraphs are understandable, but not a sentence. It also causes more problems than it solves. Being bold is fine, but not when someone objects.
Bgwhite (
talk)
21:15, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
Just for the record, I garee with Bgwhite on that. -- Magioladitis ( talk) 22:45, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:
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) 00:23, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
I have reverted your deletion of the charming little poem in honour of the G2 expressway between Beijing and Shanghai that I found on Twitter the other day. Your credentials within Chinese literature is not visible from your profile. I thought the reason for deletion "all messed up" was a little short. If you would care to elaborate on why the poem did not belong there in your opinion? It is not uncommon that major infrastructure projects in China lend themselves to poetic praise, and such have been included in other Wiki articles. Do you read Chinese at all?-- 94.242.58.159 ( talk) 16:46, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
articles on wikipedia really people like Dilpreet Dhillon and Inder chahal in punjab is more then 1000 is you gonna make articles on then common it's wikipedia man people in punjab is like every one wanna singer and most people make a song like joke and you gonna putt on wikipedia all of them — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.253.154.210 ( talk) 04:37, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello @BG19bot first of all thank you very much for your time and determination for the article of an actor Daniel Horvath, I translated the page from his Spanish version and really put all the useful references in order to give the best quality for wikipedia I could, therefore please check the bio of this actor and hope that you will approve and be able to arrase the tag of multiple issues because there is all related information is given already. Thank you very much for your consideration, if you have any question please do not hesitated to contact back.-- Anonimoushh ( talk) 12:20, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
Dear Bgwhite/Archive 50,
I'd like to extend a cordial invitation to you to join the Ten Year Society, an informal group for editors who've been participating in the Wikipedia project for ten years or more.
Best regards, Dan Koehl ( talk) 13:21, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for tidying the references I've added on the Robert Black article. There is one thing which has somewhat confused me - the repeated tweaking of the ISBN for Nigel Weir's book 'British Serial Killers' (which I own). The ISBN I've added is now concise and correct (I just misplaced the order of a 6 & 7 and I'll fix that). It ends in a 5. Here is an online copy of the book (although I assume you've verified this). Kind regards. -- Kieronoldham ( talk) 00:55, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
Please respect the tag on the file. You just lost me a ton of work. It is in use. I will release it as soon as I am finished, but now I have to reconstruct all the corrections I just did and lost. I love help, but put the "in use" tag on it to prevent edit conflicts. All my work just went up in smoke on the last paragraphs. *sigh* SusunW ( talk) 01:58, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Hi. This edit doesn't seem to do anything noticeable to the article. Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 07:54, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
Bgwhite: the first edit above was polite, civil and to the point. Yet your first response was "get lost". This is not how a bot operator should respond to queries about their bot's edits. Please don't let yourself get wound up by Lugnuts.
Lugnuts: please stay off this page for at least a week because your continual comments are being perceived as harassment (even if they are not intended so). If there are serious errors, please draw them to attention of myself or WP:AN.
Thanks both for your cooperation — Martin ( MSGJ · talk) 09:17, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
For future reference for me, note User talk:Fram#IBAN and trolling on Magioladitis' page. Bgwhite ( talk) 10:07, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
Hi. I was upset to see Magioladitis coming under criticism at WP:AN for certain automated editing and have followed the trail of discussion to here. You're both very valuable editors that Wikipedia cannot afford to lose, so I hope these issues can be resolved. I see that you both work the Wikipedia:WikiProject Check Wikipedia/List of errors, and this seems to be a (the?) source of the criticism. Is there community consensus that all 108 errors in this table are of sufficient severity to not be considered cosmetic errors which would require another, more serious fix be made simultaneously to justify an edit? For example, let's look at #64, "Link equal to linktext", which is listed as priority "Low". Fram gave this edit as an example of what they feel is a "cosmetic edit", as I understand it. The edit summary ( WP:CHECKWIKI error fix for #64. Do general fixes if a problem exists. - using AWB (11876)) indicates that fix #64 is the primary rationale for this edit. Is there a broad consensus for that? It seems some might prefer to relegate #64 to "general fixes" status, i.e. something that is only done in conjunction with another, less cosmetic, change that is made when AWB users have the checkbox for "Apply general (minor) fixes" checked. Maybe if two or more "minor" fixes can be made with the same edit, the combination of multiple minor fixes might rise to a level sufficient to justify an edit. Maybe, if this hasn't yet been done, the community can review the list of errors and separate the errors which are sufficiently severe to justify an immediate edit from those which need to be combined with another error to justify an automated edit. Also, can't AWB detect when the primary reason for an edit, as identified here, has already been fixed since the list of pages to fix was generated, and just skip the edit when the only thing being changed is one single item in the "general (minor) fixes" category? Wbm1058 ( talk) 20:36, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
<sup>
or <sub>
, are because of Visual Editor. If these tags are not closed properly (say <sup>th</sub>
), VE will continue along with super scripting. When the error was added, VE team was not going to fix this. Error
#104 is another VE issue. Errors
#26 and
#38, for <i>
and <b>
, have tags that should not be used...
WP:Deviations on the Accessibility MOS page states why. BTW, VE is causing errors to show up for #64. They usually go '''[[Acme|''Acme'']]''' ''',''' is a great company.
I've submitted a bug report and it has been quickly ignored.<b>
to wikicode, however people often use <b>
when they meant <br>
.
@ Wbm1058, Fram, and Magioladitis: The bot request for fixing WP:LISTGAP issues has been approved. This will appear to be a cosmetic change to most people. Could you look at the bottom of the request for a proposed edit summary. Comments on the summary, example and anything else would be greatly appreciated. Bgwhite ( talk) 06:11, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:
Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot ( talk) 00:22, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
Since 2007, I have attempted to contribute both information and donations to this site. My money is accepted but the editors have been less than helpful. You are the first person here who did not make me feel ignorant and inconsequential. I can't tell you how much I appreciate your kindness and assistance. Another "editor" (who will remain anonymous) made me feel as though I'm breaching some secret society by making minor corrections to the page of my ex-husband who was murdered 1997. Because of his children, his legacy is important to us and must be accurate, not culled by crawl bots from less than reputable non-news websites and blogs who write inaccurate info without exercising due diligence. I've been working as a consultant, publicist, photographer, and record label executive in R&B and hip hop for 46 years. I thought that I could contribute some background info (with appropriate research links and footnotes) on black American musicians who might otherwise be forgotten. Wikipedia already has less entries on minorities as it is - I wanted to make this site more racially diverse. I rely on Wikipedia greatly to assist my clients and for marketing strategies and business plans. However, it seems that my help is not wanted. I will not be making any more contributions in the future. But I really appreciate your help and professional work ethic. R&BDiva ( talk) 17:03, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:
Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot ( talk) 00:18, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
In this edit your bot broke a link. It's the cite to Classic Boat's "Elizabeth Meyer – Queen of the J-Class" article. I can't see the difference between the two links, so I assume that the original URL contains a unicode character. This is the correct link - you corrected it to this. -- Stroller ( talk) 12:25, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for all your hard work in taking on this job. I wanted to point out - mainly for complainants who want to "see better in the edit box" - that a line containing just a "*" leaves a visible gap in the edit box, but produces a list item that is neither displayed, nor announced by screen readers because it has display:none set. It's a work-around that is less than optimal, but might deflect some complaints.
* long item a * * long item b
produces:
It's interesting that definition lists are handled differently by the wiki-parser. A line containing only any number of ":" is ignored completely, allowing visible gaps to be placed the edit-box of threaded discussions without problem.
: long comment a : : long comment b : long comment c :: long comment d :: :: long comment e
produces:
Here's hoping this may save you from some bludgeoning. Cheers -- RexxS ( talk) 15:11, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
Hi Bgwhite! I have reverted this bot edit, which put the article into Category:Pages with URL errors. Normally we wouldn't want to use other Wikipedias as references, but I think an article ABOUT another Wikipedia would be a reasonable expection. What do you think is the best long-term solution for this citation? Thanks! GoingBatty ( talk) 23:41, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
I undid this edit as the bracket was correct. Understandable as it looks like an error in isolation, but I thankfully checked it as AWB and bot edits on maths pages often go wrong.-- JohnBlackburne words deeds 21:52, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
you put on the speedly deletion that if i improve the articles that could delete the speedly deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Junoloara ( talk • contribs) 07:58, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
In your re-deletion of Smurfing (online gaming) you stated that the article "Had no refs then, still has no refs".
This is incorrect.
There was a single reference from GamesRadar. I made this quite clear on the talk page (which has now also been deleted by you), giving this as the reason for recreating a previously-deleted article; the previous rationale did not apply.
(I was not the author of the material; I simply transferred it from the disambiguation page I was tidying up).
Can you please explain why you deleted this article?
Ubcule ( talk) 16:24, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
Ubcule, there was no reference. There was a link that talked about something else that just mentioned Smurfing. That is not a reference. That doesn't come close to "significant coverage" portion of WP:GNG to be considered a ref. There previous rational was there was no references with another comment saying they remember the term, but it wasn't notable. You had to have references that meet GNG to overcome the previous deletion. I also deleted it after it had been nominated for deletion. Bgwhite ( talk) 06:24, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
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
scrub_wikitext
instead of scrubWikitext
.
[4]Changes this week
Meetings
Future changes
Tech news prepared by tech ambassadors and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.
18:58, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
Don't quite get "painted in rock colour". The cathedral was grey when I was I child, "original" colours restored in the 20th century, - and even more original in a second round of restoration which is ongoing inside. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 22:57, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that some edits performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. They are as follows:
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) 00:20, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
Good morning - can you please undelete Winter Plummer? I'm running a class on Women and War, and we are working on creating stubs for important women who have died in wartime. I do know that just being a person and dying isn't worthy of an encyclopedia entry, but we are building an overall narrative of women warriors and these stubs are a part of that project. I was about to assign the stub for revision (which, I admit, it completely needs) when I found it was deleted. I would be thankful if you could undelete it and, if you don't mind, add your input on what needs to be fixed on the talk page. Bellicist ( talk) 15:04, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
Bgwhite, you reverted some changes on the /info/en/?search=Origin_theories_of_Christopher_Columbus page that I had tried to correct. The reference inserted in the article is bogus. The the book, "Długosz, Jan. Annales seu cronicae incliti Regni Poloniae. IM Publications, 1997." says no such thing about King Wladyslaw. Długosz's only reference to any homosexuality is in the year 1447 (3 years after Varna) at and is about King Casimir's court. Not about King Wladyslaw. If you insist on keeping the false reference in the article please provide the exact page for the reference, otherwise one should remove the false reference. Reynatour ( talk) 20:44, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
Accoording to Stefan Kühn you manage the check wikipedia project these days. Can you drop code 006, no defaultsort with special characters, for nlwiki as we now switched to uca-nl sorting, see phabricator:T125774. Akoopal ( talk) 13:10, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
Although BG19bot made a couple of worthwhile edits here, it also made a number of completely unnecessary ones, specifically removing spaces that don't affect the rendered output.
It also added a newline between a template call and a comment related to the template call - I wanted them on the same line.
Many editors are in the habit of hitting the space bar at least once after every period, even if the period is at the end of a paragraph. There is no effect on the rendered text, so no reason to remove it.
While removing such spaces does not affect the text seen by the reader, the bot's edits do increase editor workload. They complicate the editing history of the article and make diffs between versions more time-consuming to go through. Many of these changes can be difficult to see and evaluate in the diffs display. This can sometimes cause a lot of wasted time and effort for later editors trying to figure out what a previous edit has done.
All because of edits that do not improve the article for the reader, not in the slightest detail.
I would like you to consider not making such non-rendering edits in the future.
Thank you for considering this suggestion. I realize you are acting in good faith to improve the encyclopedia as you see it, but please consider that you are making unnecessary work for those who follow you. Jeh ( talk) 21:56, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, most of the complaints here are about edits that are included as part of AWB's general fixes. If you do not like those fixes, which are performed by many bots and by human editors who use AWB, an AWB talk page seems like the right venue for those complaints. – Jonesey95 ( talk) 00:01, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello Bgwhite! I need you to move or merge Draft:Star Wars: Episode VIII → Star Wars Episode VIII — I think it'll be better if you move Star Wars Episode VIII to Star Wars Episode 8 or just delete to make a way for the draft move and then redirect it back to original article. I've already requested it at Czar, but I think it'll be better if it is done soon. Thanks. -- Captain Assassin! « T ♦ C ♦ G» 18:29, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
Check Template:T20I cricket matches my page was on correct title. - Anjana Larka SEND WIKILOVE💗 08:03, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
You were right of course - that reference in Cesc Gay should have pointed to the New York Times. Sorry about that! -- Lemnaminor ( talk) 17:09, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for cleaning up my edits. It was my 1st try at a rewrite intended to update and improve neutrality. Have I succeded?
JohnP53 ( talk) 14:59, 12 February 2016 (UTC)JohnP53 JohnP53 ( talk) 14:59, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
BG, who is in charge of the software and features for "visual editor"? Dirtlawyer1 ( talk) 00:35, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
{{u|
Checkingfax}} {
Talk}
02:27, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello Bgwhite, I would like to notify that I undid part of your edit in these 2 edits for the notes & references section, as I think the "overflow style" looks more organized there with the long, ongoing list of notes & references, unless there is a policy, which I am not aware of, disallows that. Thank you. − Edward ( t⋇ c) 13:26, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
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
Problems
Changes this week
Meetings
Future changes
Tech news prepared by tech ambassadors and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.
16:16, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
I believe you are mistaken in believing Psalter Pahlavi is in a PUA. Perhaps you are confusing the range U+10B80–U+10BAF with U+100B80–U+100BAF (which is in a PUA)? Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/) [1] 21:16, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
Bgwhite, I'm a little concerned about your edit summary for Akerman LLP of general fixes and cleanup here. What exactly did you do? It's changed quite a bit more than a "general fix" to me. I think references were removed and while the prior editor was clearly promotional, that wasn't a revert and fix but something more. Can you please explain a bit of your reasoning? -- Ricky81682 ( talk) 04:04, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Hi, I have a question about Check Wikipedia.
Here there are only 115 articles. Please note that the last scanned dump was on 2016-02-03. I tried to scan the last dump (2016-02-03) using AWB. I set this regex: \s+\[\[([^|:]*)\|(\1)\]\]
(case sensitive) and AWB finds about 4800 articles. Can you tell me why Check Wikipedia's list is not complete? Thanks. Bye. --
The Polish (
talk)
19:58, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:
Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot ( talk) 00:22, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
It appears that when you moved Hadamard’s gamma function to Hadamard's gamma function (with a different style of apostrophe), you then deleted the new redirect page that was left behind, calling it non-controversial cleanup. I think that was a mistake and I have restored the redirect page. Generally redirects from misspellings, misnomers, mis-punctuated names, mis-capitalized names, and alternative names should be kept so that if anyone links to them or enters them into the search box they will find the article. Otherwise they might conclude no article on the topic exists and the might then start a new article with an alternative name. See Wikipedia:Redirect#Purposes_of_redirects. Michael Hardy ( talk) 22:41, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for your work tidying the place up, but you need to be more careful with your botwork on the punctuation pages. You "corrected" a passage explicitly talking about the use of a double hyphen (i.e., --) with an en dash, entirely mucking up the point being made. (Don't worry: already fixed. Just letting you know.) — LlywelynII 02:01, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
This article is not a Promotional page and is incomplete as we are working on it. You recently removed the Academics, Awards and Featured form this article. Kindly let us complete and also let us know why Academics, Awards and Featured must not be mentioned in a biography of a Philosophy Scholar and researcher. Kindly guide and assist as The professor associated is the only teacher guiding non Sanskrit students to learn Apabhramsa from past 55 years. नाहर ( talk)Naahar
Thanks. (for this) Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia ( talk) 10:23, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
Sometimes the bot adds a label to a reference and inexplicably also removes the reference info, as is shown in the following two edits:
99.236.126.9 ( talk) 20:15, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
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
Problems
Changes this week
Meetings
Tech news prepared by tech ambassadors and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.
18:22, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
Hi. I am not sure where to take this, but I see you have also edited an article I edit, and are a wikipedia administrator. I have run into an editor who I don't think is editing fairly. He just deletes what I add, even though it has reliable newspapers as sources. With not-a-reason reasons. He seems to enjoy it, and has been blocked before for edit warring a number of times but is doing this now. And when I put my case to the article talk page, his response? He followed me to another page I had just edited -- very clearly, if you look at the times of the edits and previous history of editing of that article -- and deleted my substantial addition that had many citations for the sentences, to many reliable newspapers. I've told another editor, but I do not know if he is the right person. But I told him here ... can you maybe take a look at this? It is very upsetting to have someone just delete your stuff willy nilly, and then follow you around to do it again for no sensible reason but enjoying upsetting you. /info/en/?search=User_talk:HJ_Mitchell#And_now_the_editor_I_mentioned_is_hounding_me
199.102.168.8 ( talk) 22:56, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
I'm afraid I don't understand your comment. The three rule I see are:
Taking these in turn:
Why then am I in breach of the rules?
Your revision has corrupted the layout of the mixed mode sum. Was this intentional? I would suggest to you that leaving it in its corrupt form is not helpful to readers, even if it does enable the bots free reign. After all WP:RF, not WP:BOTfirst!
You seem to be pretty senior, so I'll leave the mess for you to deal with in the correct manner and will monitor how you do so. Regards, Martin of Sheffield ( talk) 09:41, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
{{
bots|deny|AWB}}
. I see you left another message at Magioladitis' talk page and he should help out to do what is best.
Bgwhite (
talk)
10:22, 22 February 2016 (UTC)06:29, 23 February 2016 Bgwhite (talk | contribs) deleted page María Concepción Zúñiga López (A1: Very short article lacking sufficient context to identify subject of article (TW)) as stated the page was NOT an article but a RELAY page -- please reply to objections or suggest a better alternative; there are many similar pages to delete so if you have no CONSTRUCTIVE recommendations for IMPROVEMENT please do not destroy work in progress. I appreciate and effect all constructive recommendations. If my format is not correct, please advise as to the correct process to RELAY / catch / correct keyboard inaccuracies -- I suggested disambiguation but I was not certain that was the correct approach. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Startarrant ( talk • contribs)
That was what I needed to know. I will work on that. -- startarrant — Preceding unsigned comment added by Startarrant ( talk • contribs) 00:12, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
Hi Bgwhite.
How do I stop the BG19bot edits on articles, or at least parts of articles, for at least #48, such as the recent ones on:
The linking of the page in itself was quite deliberate, because the linked item is part of section transcluded text into other articles and from there there needs to be a link back to the source article.
BG19bot does not seem to be listed as {{ nobots}} compliant ?
Eno Lirpa ( talk) 11:13, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
<section>
. Doing it differently than 99.9% of how it is done causes problems. No example in WP:TRANS uses just a lead or even a couple of sentences. Doing a sentence is a complete waste. Paragraphs are understandable, but not a sentence. It also causes more problems than it solves. Being bold is fine, but not when someone objects.
Bgwhite (
talk)
21:15, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
Just for the record, I garee with Bgwhite on that. -- Magioladitis ( talk) 22:45, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:
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) 00:23, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
I have reverted your deletion of the charming little poem in honour of the G2 expressway between Beijing and Shanghai that I found on Twitter the other day. Your credentials within Chinese literature is not visible from your profile. I thought the reason for deletion "all messed up" was a little short. If you would care to elaborate on why the poem did not belong there in your opinion? It is not uncommon that major infrastructure projects in China lend themselves to poetic praise, and such have been included in other Wiki articles. Do you read Chinese at all?-- 94.242.58.159 ( talk) 16:46, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
articles on wikipedia really people like Dilpreet Dhillon and Inder chahal in punjab is more then 1000 is you gonna make articles on then common it's wikipedia man people in punjab is like every one wanna singer and most people make a song like joke and you gonna putt on wikipedia all of them — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.253.154.210 ( talk) 04:37, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello @BG19bot first of all thank you very much for your time and determination for the article of an actor Daniel Horvath, I translated the page from his Spanish version and really put all the useful references in order to give the best quality for wikipedia I could, therefore please check the bio of this actor and hope that you will approve and be able to arrase the tag of multiple issues because there is all related information is given already. Thank you very much for your consideration, if you have any question please do not hesitated to contact back.-- Anonimoushh ( talk) 12:20, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
Dear Bgwhite/Archive 50,
I'd like to extend a cordial invitation to you to join the Ten Year Society, an informal group for editors who've been participating in the Wikipedia project for ten years or more.
Best regards, Dan Koehl ( talk) 13:21, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for tidying the references I've added on the Robert Black article. There is one thing which has somewhat confused me - the repeated tweaking of the ISBN for Nigel Weir's book 'British Serial Killers' (which I own). The ISBN I've added is now concise and correct (I just misplaced the order of a 6 & 7 and I'll fix that). It ends in a 5. Here is an online copy of the book (although I assume you've verified this). Kind regards. -- Kieronoldham ( talk) 00:55, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
Please respect the tag on the file. You just lost me a ton of work. It is in use. I will release it as soon as I am finished, but now I have to reconstruct all the corrections I just did and lost. I love help, but put the "in use" tag on it to prevent edit conflicts. All my work just went up in smoke on the last paragraphs. *sigh* SusunW ( talk) 01:58, 27 February 2016 (UTC)