User talk:Bgwhite/Archive 40

Bah! Humbug!

I waited until after the holidays to bring this up, lest I be accused of being a Scrooge or a Grinch. But then I felt I had to be a little ironic; hence the section heading.

I find the "#Happy Holidays!" message above to be absolutely horrible. I've received greetings from insurance companies which were more personal!

It was a message signed by "MediaWiki message delivery". How festive! Doesn't it just give you a warm, fuzzy feeling? Sending a frivolous message with a notation that it's being sent "to all registered users whom have commented on his talk page" is not only grammatically incorrect and laughably impersonal, but is definitely an inappropriate use of his mass message sender right.

Then it says "To prevent receiving future messages, please follow the opt-out instructions". Well, such a message requiring an opt-out should never have been sent in the first place, but then the specified page (since deleted) allegedly containing those instructions actually contained no such thing.

And he can't even be reported to the appropriate notice board for his blatantly inappropriate abuse of the mass message sender right, because then he'd have to be notified on his talk page, and that would result in being added to his spam list.

Ho, ho, ho. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 23:21, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Mandarax Not to mention that they messed up and had to come by a second time to fix it, but I really don't mind the messages. I abhor Christmas time, so I am a Scrooge. Among the things... My family members seem to die off at Christmas time. This year, my wife's grandmother died a few days before Christmas. My wife takes the "prize". In high school, she had a friend that came out as gay to his family right before Christmas. Family kicked him out and he stayed at my wife's family house. He hung himself during Christmas break and my wife was the one to find him. His family didn't show up to the funeral and the neighborhood paid for the funeral costs. When I worked at the University, about once every two years, some Prof would call up on Christmas and demand something with the computers had to be fixed immediately. I'd say no and usually had to hang up due to the yelling. Dean's office had a pool going on who would call and how many hours it would take until the Prof complained to the Dean. Bgwhite (talk) 11:02, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

First, let me make it clear that it wasn't the message I had a problem with (other than the grammar), but the abuse of a user right and the fact that doing it that way turned what should have been a warm, personal greeting into cold, mechanical, impersonal, meaningless, empty junk mail. I'm so sorry to hear that you and your family have had to endure such hardships over the holidays. In spite of your jokes about your mother-in-law, how wonderful of her to take the kid in after being rejected by his own family. She is a saint, and I hope the kid's parents are rotting in Hell. I hate to say this, but in light of what happened, your recent joke about killing yourself after spending a holiday with your mother-in-law was not funny. Well, I'm not exactly "spreading the love" here, am I? MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 20:44, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

BTW, Bgwhite, I would never in a million years think that you intended your joke in any way to insensitively refer to that kid. My strange little mind just put those two pieces together. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 05:25, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Mandarax I will deny this if this is ever mentioned... My mother-in-law is a saint. She is always taking in "strays". We kid she runs a hotel. She currently has her niece's daughter living with them. She is an adult, but was a crack baby, so she has problems. The grandfather is moving in with them in a few weeks. She's been a mother since she was three as she was the acting mother of her brothers. Her parents physically and emotionally abused her and her little brothers (chained them in closets). When she was 7, her parents sat them on a curb of a fire station and took off. I still get real confused at family gatherings... Let's see your my mother-in-law's brother's, who was adopted by another family, step-brother. Bgwhite (talk) 08:14, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Urk. Some of these people make Spooge and the skank seem like Parents of the Year. (The marathon resumes tomorrow.) MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 04:45, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello Mandarax and BG, two editors who (it should go without saying) I hold in quite high esteem. As a recipient of the aforementioned mass greeting, I wish to opine. I am quite in agreement with you Mandarax, it read as somewhat cold and mechanical as delivered by the mass message account, and I myself have never been one for the holiday season (save for getting time off work, which given the nature of my work, often doesn't happen). Having said that, I do believe it is the thought that counts, and was willing to accept the greeting at face value. All the best to the Mandarax family and the Bgwhite family (including your wife and mother-in-law) in 2015. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 21:06, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words and good wishes. Yes, it's hard to find fault with something when there were good intentions, but I managed to pull it off. If he had sent messages to all those people without invoking his user right to send them via the mass messaging delivery system, it would've been fine. Probably nobody would've even known that they were victims of greetspam. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 05:25, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

(ec) Mandarax, you made me blush by a personal message once. I don't send individual ones for holidays but try to spread a bit of peace for those who click. (I could add to the stories, luckily not from 2014, but will not.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:24, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Hehe, seeing the edit conflict, I bet you and kelapstick were drawn here by my provocative edit summary. Yes, the page you linked to is a very nice way of giving people greetings without having to spam them. Gerda, you just may be a much nicer person than I am; I just noticed that you recently implored a user not to leave, first in the section notifying him of his block, and then in a new "Sorrow" section. I, on the other hand, would litterally be dancing on his grave, as I consider this abusive admin who rampaged through DYK on a reign of terror to be absolutely the single worst thing on Wikipedia. His abusive behavior caused countless people to leave either DYK or Wikipedia entirely. His behavior drove me away from Wikipedia for nine weeks. It was so completely demoralizing that, a half a year later, I'm still barely editing and haven't written a thing. The two sections at the top of my talk page about the "WT:DYK Cesspool" are all about him. If he left, it wouldn't go on my "sad list", I'd make a new list: an "ecstatic list". MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 05:25, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

I have seen phases, of DYK crisis and people. I defend people to whom injustice happens, as in the above case. I defend people whom others despise, possibly defend them even more because of it, see here my comment about a future? (I like Kafka, and the irony that the two are not the greatest friends of each other, to put it mildly.) - At present, DYK seems to run smoothly, and my latest suggestion graces the Main page, pictured. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:09, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

I remember well when I received Gerda's precious message. I don't have a memory, which is part of the reason, but two barnstar type messages really stand out for me. One from Gerda and the ones from Mandarax. I was still semi-new and they made me felt important and welcome. I'm in the same boat as Mandarax... Gerda is also a much better and nicer person than me. There are a couple of people who I would be dancing on their graves if they left. Bgwhite (talk) 08:31, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

(You made me blush again. I also remember the feeling when I was called awesome Wikipedian on 3 August 2010, and keep the full message on my user page.) I danced on a grave once. Dona nobis pacem is further up there. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:45, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm glad both of you mentioned the barnstars I've given to you; that may help to balance out the perception of me to people who may be seeing this and don't know me as a supportive, friendly, helpful person. Gerda, I'm very aware of your defending deserving users; that was actually part of the rationale for the barnstar I gave you. It's great that you "defend people to whom injustice happens", but I've seen no evidence that that is the case here. Even if it's true, I'd say that it was karma, since the user in question inflicted injustice on so many other users. Note that there's never been any interaction between the two of us, so I'm able to look at this objectively as an outside observer. Since you work so hard to keep good users around, I find it puzzling that you defend someone who drove away many good users, and didn't care that he had done so – when discussing his driving people away, his response was "So what?". If he left, my reaction would not be a mere "So what?", but rather a joyous "Hallelujah!" MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 23:57, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

The Upper Room

I deleted/edited your revision to The Upper Room listing. The Upper Room is often mistakenly referred to as an "arm" of the UMC, but it is nondenominational and independent. It gets confused often because it is connected to the General Board of Discipleship of the UMC and was started by the UMC. The GBOD is an agency of the UMC, but The Upper Room remains independent and nondenominational. It receives no money from the UMC and is its own 501C3. Hope this helps clarify. Just wanted to explain why I reversed the edit.WordUpdater (talk) 19:35, 6 January 2015 (UTC)  :

WordUpdater That is not the reason why you reverted. Per my edit summary, you added a huge amount of material, including quotes, that contained no references. You also add material that is copyrighted. It is copied from http://www.upperroom.org/about/history. One cannot copy and paste from other sites. This is not only per Wikipedia rules, it is international law. Bgwhite (talk) 21:37, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Ankara

Do you know if it was only all the places in the province of Ankara that you mangled here? in case you don't see the problem notice what you did to the infobox. I am working my through all the ones in Category:Populated places in Ankara Province, but figure there are probably more? 198.102.153.2 (talk) 20:06, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Lothian & Borders Fire and Rescue Service

I see you've removed a pic I placed on this page yesterday, but I don't find any reason given in the view history. I'm not concerned about the removal as such (I'm working my way through an old archive, and am often in two minds as to whether a pic still has relevance). It might help me gauge other people's views, if you let me know what your instant reaction was to seeing this pic on the page. Did you feel it did not help illlustrate the article's subject and if so, why?. Kim Traynor | Talk 08:07, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Kim Traynor I originally arrived at the article because the image was on the same line as a section header. This results in the section header not being displayed. I didn't see how the pic enhanced the article... it looks like a very, very small guy standing on a big roof. Bgwhite (talk) 08:29, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

That's one way of looking at it! For those coming to the page who recognise The George Hotel, Haddington the pic shows firemen practising on its roof; probably dousing a chimney blaze. I thought that would add to interest of the page. It's helpful to know that placing image details right after a secton header blanks the latter's display. That's something I've done inadvertently, but will make a mental note of for future reference. Kim Traynor | Talk 11:38, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

For those TPSs that may be puzzled, this is the page prior to the fix mentioned above, and the problem is that ==Regional Fire and Rescue Services in Scotland 1975-2013== appears as plain text - with the two pairs of equals signs visible, instead of being formatted as a section heading. @Kim Traynor: it's not just images - putting anything other than whitespace on the same line as a section heading will break that heading. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:50, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for that helpful info. Kim Traynor | Talk 21:21, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Sandburg and Congress

Hello BgW - I will as you suggest AGF and not take as lacking GF your edit summary presumption that I made a "blind revert" to your statement that the cited source does not support the sentence that "As of 2013, Sandburg remains the only American poet ever invited to address a joint session of Congress". So - the Heitman article supporting that point was from and is linked to the March/April 2013 issue of Humanities. I am going to guess that the inclusion of the "As of 2013" qualifier was the prior editor's inference from the date of the number of the journal. In any event, Heitman quotes Joseph Epstein - certainly a RS for literary commentary - and here is a copy/paste from the online version, second paragraph: "In a bristling assessment of the poet’s career, literary commentator Joseph Epstein has summarized Sandburg’s A-list status in his era’s popular culture: 'Carl Sandburg is the only American poet ever asked to address Congress...' ". So article author Heitman is quoting Epstein without providing a source. Five minutes on Google presents us with this 2009 piece by Epstein from Commentary [1] where Epstein opens his third paragraph with the selfsame sentence that Heitman is quoting. Epstein definitely wrote it; he's an NEH Medal Winner for his commentary, generally literary and an RS; the sentence supports the contention in the Wikipedia article. Once again - here is the link to the Humanities article by Heitman :[2]. Your edit summary for the rv: "Arrgghh. Actually look at the thing first instead of a blind revert. There is NO reference. Nothing. Nada. Therefore, it doesn't show up ANYWHERE in the article." We seem to be at cross purposes here, and I look forward to further elucidation from you. regards, Sensei48 (talk) 08:04, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Sensei48 You do not understanding my edit summary. It is not saying what you think it is saying. Actually look at the thing first instead of a blind revert. There is NO reference. Nothing. Nada. Therefore, it doesn't show up ANYWHERE in the article.

You have done the quote wrong. There is no reference ATTACHED to the quote. The quote DOES NOT SHOW UP in the article. It is syntactically wrong. My version and your version of the article are IDENTICAL because the quote is not showing up as it is not attached to a reference. Bgwhite (talk) 08:17, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Your objection then is that Heitman in Humanities does not provide a source? That would suggest that secondary or indirect quotations from RS are not acceptable. Interesting. Some confusion here from the edit summary. However - the link I provided you from Epstein's original does say so. Because in an essay (which Heitman is writing as well) Epstein does not provide a footnote for his assertion - you would not find a direct cite to him acceptable either, I am guessing. You need a clearer referent for what the "it" is here: the assertion that CS is the only poet to be invited to speak before Congress? What would be an RS for that if not one of the country's leading literary commentators? regards, Sensei48 (talk) 08:35, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Sensei48 You are not understanding. Again, my edit summary and talk message are not saying what you think it is saying. Read what I said. Bgwhite (talk) 08:42, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Sensei48 Thank you for fixing it with this edit. Bgwhite (talk) 22:06, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Alberta Environment article renamed or new article created?

Thank you for your past edit on this article. I am grateful for your experience and expertise as a Wikipedia editor. Could you please comment on the following:

I created the articles Alberta Environment on 19 June 2014 and Alberta Energy Regulator on 24 June 2014. By October 2014 the article Alberta Environment had 29 edits, 14,119 bytes, about eight articles linked to it, many wikilinks, about six sections and more subsections, an info box and over a dozen solid references with inline editing and inline citations. On 19 October 2014, a new user Alberta Brian (talk) cut and deleted the entire contents of the Alberta Environment article and pasted it into a "new" article he created entitled Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resource Development. He did this to reflect the 2012 merger of Alberta Environmentand Energy Resources Conservation Board ERCB) into the new Environment and Sustainable Resource Development department. Little was added to the article when it was renamed. By creating a new article instead of renaming the original article, the history of 29 edit summaries of the original article was deleted and the original article was reduced to one sentence and as you noted, it is now underlinked. I am sure there is some kind of protocol when government departments undergo mergers and name changes whereby the original article is renamed and there is an automatic redirect for those who search for Alberta Environment (443 people since the change) as opposed to 177 visits to the Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resource Development article)? I propose the deleted content be restored to the Alberta Environment article and the name be changed to Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resource Development to reflect the merger with redirects from the original name Alberta Environment to this newly named article. Then the "new" October 2014 article Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resource Development, can be deleted. Any changes made since October can be added to the renamed article. Alberta Environment has been cited many times as the development of the oil sands became highlighted in the news internationally. This article should not be gutted.Oceanflynn (talk) 17:46, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 8 January

Arthur Devis Mr and Mrs ReferenceBot - say hello!

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 Mahwah, New Jersey page, your edit caused a cite error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:20, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Jeffrey Lopez

Hello, Bgwhite. I want to ask you what's going on with the Jeffrey Lopez article? I see you posted a speedy deletion notice at User talk:Duskty, but you did not propose the article for deletion (I have his talk page in my watchlist). Vanjagenije (talk) 01:55, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Vanjagenije That had me buffuzzled too. Looks like I had a brain fart. I swear I thought it was a new article, instead it was a vandalized article. The admin who deleted the article restored it after seeing my stupidity. They didn't restore the vandalism or my deletion notice, so... there is no evidence of my stupidity, yea that's it, nothing happened. Bgwhite (talk) 02:42, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I understand now. Maybe you should remove the speedy deletion notice from User talk:Duskty, since there is now speedy deletion. Vanjagenije (talk) 02:45, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Links to Google

Why are you deleting all my links to Google Maps on all my articles? Samrong01 (talk) 08:58, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Samrong01 It is redundant and can be seen as promotion. It is redundant because at the top-left hand corner of any of the articles, there is the coordinate for the town. Clicking on it will give the user a wide array of maps, including Google Maps and IGN Maps. We should not be promoting certain maps unless it brings something new or original that the other maps do not have. Careful on saying "my". Bgwhite (talk) 09:14, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I have checked those links and they link only to a point without even displaying the name they are going to. The links I put in display the borders of the commune and the name of the commune which are highly useful. I do not agree that these are redundant. Samrong01 (talk) 10:28, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Samrong01 Huh? You do realise that the user can click the zoom button on Google maps and show the same thing? The IGN maps are exactly identical. OpenStreetMap is sort of the official map of Wikipedia as they are in collaboration. It is usually superior to Google maps and even is better that your Google map hack. 1) It is redundant 2) We don't promote 3) User already has the choice of their preferred map. Bgwhite (talk) 02:55, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Samrong01 I see you go around and doing a brand new template to subvert this. This also includes a new geographic coordinate. Again, this is NOT how to do it. Bgwhite (talk) 06:22, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

I am sorry you are not willing to try it yourself. I know you can zoom but only to the coordinate point not to the commune so you do NOT get the same result as my link you only get a random point somewhere in the commune. Yes I agree Openstreetmap is a little better but does not have the additional facilities of Google Maps as it is only a street map. I have tried all the maps listed on the coordinate link page and they all show a point and do NOT display the commune information displayed on Google Maps. Some of them do not work at all. I do not promote Google Maps - if I can find a better map I will use it - but Google Maps provides a greater amount of information on a commune than any other map including Openstreetmap. Geoportal is also an excellent detailed map but very slow and without many facilities of Google Maps - although it does have access to maps not available elsewhere so I also include a link to that. Samrong01 (talk) 08:03, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Samrong01 Huh? I did try it. I zoomed via Google Maps on several communes and got the EXACT SAME map you have except for the boundary. It is NOT some random point because the coordinates in the article are editable if you don't like them. Again, we DO NOT put all those maps in the external links. That is what the coordinates are for. IGN maps are IDENTICAL. Again... 1) It is redundant 2) We don't promote 3) User already has the choice of their preferred map. Bgwhite (talk) 08:19, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Except for the Boundary! What about the commune name - its not there either! So its not the same map and its useless if it doesnt show the boundary and the name. You have deleted the maps from my template including the IGN map which is no longer accessible from the articles at all. You have forgotten to delete the 1750 map - you better go back and do that. Its based on Google so cant have any promotion. Also I used Google maps as a reference in my articles so you need to revert all the articles I have done. Its ironic that when I go to Google search engine to search on any subject the first item to be returned is always Wikipedia - even ahead of any official website - which is very annoying. Wikipedia would be dead without the promotion that Google gives it. Yet any use of Google on Wikipedia you consider promotion. The maps under the coordinates are all inferior and pretty useless - I know I have been through them all. Some are as confusing as hell, others dont work at all, some go to a completely different location - Bing gives me South-east Asia for France. Good luck with the many many hundreds of articles you will be updating. I suppose you have a bot for that. Its time I gave up wasting my time with Wikipedia so dont worry I wont be doing any more. Samrong01 (talk) 09:07, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Samrong01 The commune names were on the maps for everyone article I tried. Only the boundary was different. IGN maps are accessible in every article... all one does is click the coordinates. If the coordinates are wrong, there are other major problems as other things tie into those coordinates. Therefore, if the coordinates are wrong, you fix them. When something is broke, you fix it, not ignore it. Yes, I will have to visit all your other articles because other things wrong that I explained on your talk page. I see something wrong, I fix it. You are over reacting for such a silly thing. Bgwhite (talk) 09:20, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

-> WP:EL#Links normally to be avoided # 15: ″Sites already linked through Wikipedia sourcing tools. For example, instead of linking to a commercial book site, consider the "ISBN" linking format, which gives readers an opportunity to search a wide variety of free and non-free book sources. Map sources can be linked by using geographical coordinates.″ --193.18.240.18 (talk) 09:58, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Kolossos (de:Benutzer:Kolossos) what you think about this? Is Samrong01 right or wrong? -- Magioladitis (talk) 09:37, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

OK here is a random commune that I have done recently that BGWhite has not yet got around to deleting the links: Barbazan, Haute-Garonne. I click on coordinates then Google Maps. No matter what level of zoom you go to you will not see the commune name or the commune boundary. Now try my link and see the difference. Samrong01 (talk) 09:59, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Samrong01 I pinged Kolossos and also left a message in their talk page. They are involved with maps a lot and can advice us. -- Magioladitis (talk) 10:10, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Why don't you use the embedded OSM map in enwiki? Go to the German article de:Barbazan an click the OSM button on the right hand top of the page (). No need for extra links. --193.18.240.18 (talk) 10:17, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

I just looked at the German wikipedia and the French one also has a link. They are OK but the level of detail and facilities are inferior to Google Maps. This link is not present in English wikipedia so does not really help unless there is some way to put it there. Also tried the Geoportal link from coordinates but this link omits the ADMINISTRATIVEUNITS.BOUNDARIES parameter which displays the commune boundaries and are included in my link. Samrong01 (talk) 10:30, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Samrong01 It can be added to English Wikipedia. Commune boundaries are displayed on the OSM map as well as the name. Also note the above added by 193.18.240.18. Google maps link isn't going to happen. We are trying, thanks to Kolossos, to make things better than they currently stand.

Kolossos... Now that is cool. I hadn't heard about that button before. Redrose64 How does the OSM button gets added to Infobox French Commune or however it works? Bgwhite (talk) 10:49, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

In which Wikipedia? --Redrose64 (talk) 20:10, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Installing the OSM-Button is relative easy:de:Wikipedia:WikiProjekt_Georeferenzierung/Anwendungen/OpenStreetMap/en#Installation. As it could be usefull to replace Wikiminiatlas for this step you should talk with developer of this tool User:Dschwen. The project to link OpenStreetmap and Wikipedia/Wikidata is called WIWOSM.

During the last 10 years, we are relative happy with a central tool for links to different map services instead of supporting only one company directly in the article. So I would not change this.

It's true that google and bing are able to give feature like aerial images that we can not support until now from the free "something" movement. Thats why it's usefull to have them inside the geohack. To show borders of an object Google maps need the object name (pagename), that should be easily to transfer from Geohack by using {pagenamee} inside Template:GeoTemplate. So, if somebody has time to check this out, we could try it. --Kolossos (talk) 12:06, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

PLEASE HELP ME WITH EXO PAGE

Hey there BGwhite! I see that you have edited many wiki articles (like wow...over 300k?) haha and i just went to the Exo article (boyband) and it said that they are a "Chinese-South korean boyband" but before it stated that they are a "South korean-Chinese" boyband but i think you must have edited it. If not, i apologize but it said "last edited by bgwhite" :) I'm not accusing you but i would like for you to help me please. I am a HUGE fan of Exo and i hate reading their articles when their messed up and biased and inaccurate. You stated on your 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 truly have good faith on you and im really hoping you can help since you are one of the main editors and everyone makes mistakes and errors so its ok :D As long as we can fix it then its fine! Im just letting you know that Exo has 8 Korean members and 2 (used to be 4) chinese members so its more fair to say that Exo are a "South korean-Chinese" boyband instead of "Chinese-south korean boyband". Please understand that i am not being biased in any way :)I'm just trying to make their articles more fair because the group consists of mainly south korean members so its best to put their ethnicity first so that new fans will not get the wrong impression that they are mostly chinese. I just wish you can fix this minor error since it would make more sense that way and also because you are one of the popular main editors. Thank you so much <3 Lots of love! Mayramussarrat12345 (talk) 16:37, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Curious

Hello. I'm the owner of No. MERCY (trainee). I want to ask, can I know what you edit? If there's something that you helped with, I greatly appriciated. I hope, I can know. Thank you :)

-Owner of No. MERCY (trainee)-

Season's Greetings

Ekdalian (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas6}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Movement for the Survival of Ogoni People Harassment

Paragraph breaks in Lists

@Bgwhite I would like to know which Markup you say isn't being followed. When you make changes prove your edit. In addition, it's very unprofessional to write personal angst in the Edit Summary

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Lists#Paragraphs_and_other_breaks

Happy New Year

		Happy New Year !!!
		Michael Q. Schmidt talkback is wishing you Season's Greetings! This message celebrates the holiday season, promotes WikiLove, and hopefully makes your day a little better. Spread the seasonal good cheer by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and aHappy New Year, whether it be someone with whom you had disagreements in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Share the good feelings. - MQS

Happy New Year!

Dear Bgwhite,
HAPPY NEW YEAR Hoping 2015 will be a great year for you! Thank you for your contributions!
From a fellow editor,
--FWiW Bzuk (talk)

This message promotes WikiLove. Originally created by Nahnah4 (see "invisible note").

Info. Brother User:BgWhite

Hey, Brother Could You Please Tell me that you're from Which City , If you're An Indian... That's All..

It's My Humble Request As Being your Younger Brother...

Because I need A lot of your Co-operation...

Thanks Brother For Giving Me your precious Time...

Co-nom

Hii,
Mr. Strad has started Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Titodutta. If you want, you may co-nom it now. Regards. --Tito☸Dutta 10:34, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Thank you for fixing Ngaio Bealum's page.

Denisrodman88 (talk) 23:26, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

The edits on Sean J. Conlon were deleted.

Hello, before I redo the information that was on Sean Conlon's page (I'm not good at HTML code, so that took me quite a while) could you please tell me how I can not have you undo all the changes that I've made. I would greatly appreciate your response. I work in the Real Estate industry and have the references that are required. Which were listed. Please let me know your feedback. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AveryC3131 (talk • contribs) 20:31, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

AveryC3131 The main problem with the last addition you added was that there were no references added to the material. There needs to be independent reliable references to back-up any statements made, see WP:BLP.

I also removed more material afterwards as "fluff and unencylopedic". An example sentence is, With his humble beginnings in mind, Sean Conlon graciously takes pride in his many accomplishments – not only those that furthered his own career, but that created a wealth of opportunity for his many clients and associates alike. This sentence has no facts, but are opinions and adjectives. WP:PEACOCK shows it better than I could write. Bgwhite (talk) 01:26, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

My Image

Hi could you pls tell me why one of the pictures from my pages was removed ?? I'll be uploading a valid reference for the padma Shri award, not a problem :) but I'm lost regarding the picture ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bollywoodcritic (talk • contribs) 16:11, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Ah, now I see

You disliked the date being in English format. I just got accustomed to using that format when trying to fix dates in refs, I have lived in the U.S. all of my life. I have no problem with the format itself, just wanted the date error fixed. --7157.118.25a (talk) 06:38, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

I will change the dates on a page I just created, Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments, to match your format also, which is probably more fitting for U.S. historical documents. Memorial by the way is the major legislation on religious freedom by James Madison. --7157.118.25a (talk) 06:40, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

7157.118.25a I didn't dislike English format. All the dates on the page were in MMDD, YYYY format until the past 6 months when new refs were added See WP:DATERET

As for the TOC... No content between TOC and first headline per WP:TOC and WP:LEAD. This is an accessibility issue for users of screen readers. Bgwhite (talk) 06:45, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Ah, alright, didn't realize there was an issue with screenreading. I didn't even know there was policy on how dates for a page should be shown. I've already started switching Memorial to the U.S. format though and will just have it use that format now. --7157.118.25a (talk) 06:51, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

7157.118.25a Don't worry, there are only 593,813 more rules to remember. :) I still don't remember them all after all these year and they keep changing. If you ever have questions, feel free to ask. Bgwhite (talk) 06:59, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Alright, thanks, sorry about jumping to conclusions with the revision, just was surprised by reversion of a date fix. --7157.118.25a (talk) 07:02, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

For your Feminine side

Some early pink Party Poodles for 2015 to enchant your Feminine side. . .

---

...with much pink feelings.....

Best wishes from Haffy for a happy and healthy 2015
Hafspajen (talk) 00:00, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Dear Bgwhite, thank you for your kind messages. Here are some Pink Poodles 's for you. Hafspajen (talk) 11:54, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Some links on tz database really truly *should* have underscores in them

The tz database page has links to pages for IANA tz database zone names.

The zone names are not supposed to include spaces (the original intent was that they be easily-typed-at-a-UNIX-command-line paths for the underlying files, hence the 14-haracter limitation - back in 1987, there were still UNIX systems with 14-character filename limitations), so, instead, underscores are used.

For example, I'm in the US Pacific time zone; the tz database zone name for it is "America/Los_Angeles", as Los Angeles is the largest city in that zone.

Thus, a link to the America/Bahia_Banderas zone's Wikipedia page should read as America/Bahia_Banderas, not as America/Bahia Banderas - the zone name has an underscore, not a space, between "Bahia" and "Banderas".

The AWB tool (not to be confused with the other AWB) appears to "helpfully" fix links to America/Bahia_Banderas or time_t or..., presumably under the assumption that underscores in links are always the result of somebody pasting in part of the URL for the page, and thus should be replaced with spaces.

AWB appears, from this edit, to have "helpfully" "fixed" some of those links. I undid that edit and, in the hopes that it would convince AWB that the underscores belonged there, converted a bunch of those links to the form [[America/Bahia Banderas|America/Bahia_Banderas]].

In this edit, BG19bot reverted my edit. I just reverted its edit; is this something that needs to be fixed in BG19bot or in AWB?

Guy Harris The reason BG19bot visited the article is because it appears on this Checkwiki error list. It got on the error list because of your edit. Restoring the article to before Magioladitis' edit means the article will again not appear on Checkwiki's error list.

This does not stop a person from changing it again. I'd suggest using {{not a typo}} template or putting in a comment.

I personally just don't get it. I understand the reason why the underscore is used and would understand using the underscore in a written paper about the subject. But, it is plain moot when it comes to underlined wikilinks. An underscored wikilink does not look like an underscore, it looks like something is wrong, is ugly and doesn't belong. But, my wife did marry me despite the same reasons. Bgwhite (talk) 23:09, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Additional joke removed of course.

A faded magenta is all what's left....

That ... WAS a joke, too. Once upon a time. [3] Hafspajen (talk) 22:02, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Hafspajen Oi vey. That was PAINFUL to see. My eyes are still hurting. Even though it was reverted, I still did see it. Remember, payback is a bit..., err, best not say that. Payback is my mother-in-law. Bgwhite (talk) 23:14, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, I am NOT married. Praise the Lord. Hafspajen (talk) 23:18, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Hafspajen On the other end of the spectrum as you, there is my wife. See the last paragraph of mine on the next talk message. Bgwhite (talk) 23:24, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Oh, the problem is not that I don't have anyone to chose from. The problem is that I have too many... Hafspajen (talk) 23:49, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Chef Movie starring Perico Hernandez

Hi Bgwhite, I noticed you removed Perico Hernandez from the cast list in the wikipedia page for "Chef (film)". I don't care that much if he is included or not, but I watched the movie and enjoyed the part played by Hernandez and thought it was worth a few minutes to add his name to the cast. He also has a few songs in the sound track. Here is his home page: http://www.pericohernandez.com/biography.html Thanks, -- Eric — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.181.150.225 (talk) 04:43, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

73.181.150.225 The name was added to the very end of the article... after the references and categories. It was also added syntactically wrong, not as a Wikilink. The cast should be added under the cast section. That is why it was removed.

After looking at the references and the article, it should not be added in the first place. There was no "Perico Hernandez" listed in any of the reliable refs. There is a "Jose C. Hernandez", but he played a bit part. He was not one of the main cast. The cast section currently on lists the main cast, not bit players. Bgwhite (talk) 07:01, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

OTHERS

Do look somewhere else. Hafspajen (talk) 14:15, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

ONLY for BRWHITE*S EYES.

Wack

Fire breathing

What's occurin? Stealing sheeps and poulty? Intolerable Cruelty. I am sending over that helicopter with GUMMY BEARS; asap. Keep thy hands of my sheep. Mountain sheep. Hafspajen (talk) 14:14, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

OTHERS: DO look somewhere else. Hafspajen (talk) 14:18, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

PROD of Similkameen Elementary Secondary School

Hello, I noticed your PROD of the page above. I believe the consensus described at WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES is that all high schools are notable. This is a tricky case because it is a very small combined elemenary and high school. But given that it has grade 12 students, I assume it would pass the criteria as long as an independent source can be found. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 07:25, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Athomeinkobe When I prodded the article, it said the school was K-8. The school's web page says nothing about what grades they teach.

WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES is an essay. It is not consensus. An essay means nothing when it comes to notability.

WP:NSCHOOL IS the current guideline for schools. Essentially, the school must pass WP:GNG. I still find no independent, reliable articles about the school. Bgwhite (talk) 07:42, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining your reasoning. That's why I messaged you first rather than just straight away opposing the nomination. I based my comments on this AFD that I saw last week. The nomination was withdrawn after 5 very strong votes in favour of keeping the article. Only one of the votes mentioned the actual notability of the school, and the other 4 relied solely on precedent. (Edit: I see somebody else has removed the prod tag anyway...) AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 00:28, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

hi Bgwhite thanks for ‎your BG19bot fixing my punctuation error in The Wind in the Willows article. As a wikibeginner with wikikitten/gnome/magpie(?) tendancies its great to know that wikiveterans such as yourself are there to fix these errors:)

Coolabahapple (talk) 02:16, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

User page link

Hi, on Andrew Dalby, your bot reverted my addition of a link to Dalby's Wikipedia user page for a second time. I do understand that general WP policy is that we don't link to user pages, but in this case, Dalby's Wikipedia activity is notable and mentioned on his page -- he's even written a book about it, with subtitle "Confessions of a Contributor". I have no problem with the first bot-deletion. But isn't the usual protocol that if a human editor reverts a bot, the bot won't re-revert (except for obvious vandalism)? Thanks, --Macrakis (talk) 17:42, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Macrakis It was not a bot, it was a manual edit. There are hundreds of books about Wikipedia and notable people who edit Wikipedia, but none have a link to their userpage. Only one person has a link and that is Jimmy Wales, one of the founders of Wikipedia. Bgwhite (talk) 17:52, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Is that a documented policy? Why is Jimmy Wales an exception? Thanks, --Macrakis (talk) 20:01, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Macrakis Per Wikipedia:User pages#Userspace and mainspace, ...encyclopedia articles should never link to or transclude any userspace pages. It's Mr. Wales encyclopedia, he can do what he wants. Bgwhite (talk) 21:56, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Request for clarification

Hi Bgwhite. Quick question: You changed my {what?|date=etc} to {clarify|date=etc}, so I guess you would be the right person to ask. Are we phasing out the old question-type (who? What?) requests for clarification? I noticed yesterday that in the Portuguese WP the equivalent of the {what?|date=etc} template no longer works. Thanks for your time. Regards, Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 19:29, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Rui Gabriel Correia What? Could you clarify your request?  :)

{{what}} is a redirect to {{clarify}}. Here is a listing of the redirects for clarify. The program I used automagically converts any template redirect to the target template. It is perfectly fine to use either one. There is a group of crazy editors, including me, that think the original template should only be used and not the redirects... less confusing and easier maintenance. But, that is only a personal opinion. Bgwhite (talk) 22:11, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Roger's Wikipage

Hi BGWhite,

I'm not sure why, but you marked the page I've edited for a client as vandalism and locked the page.

I work for a PR agency which was contacted by Roger with the goal of cleaning/correcting his online presence, which specifically includes his Wikipedia page. As you know, I made said changes to his page, yet you've marked the change as vandalism and reverted to the old entry.

I apologize for any confusion, but I'd like to have this change reverted back ASAP. If need be, I can put you in contact with Roger directly.

Please let me know if there were any errors made on my end, but I believe everything was done properly and according to Wikipedia's guidelines.

Best, Chris — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobgold&associates (talk • contribs) 01:35, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Bobgold&associates Your edit made it the 7th edit that a new editor or IP has tried to make very similar changes. All edits have been reversed. From my point of view, it looked like it won't stop, so I locked the page. Two big things:

1. None of the additions have been referenced. This was stated a couple times in the edit summary and was the reason for all of the reverts. All additions must have independent and reliable references. See WP:BLP
2. The additions can be seen as promotional and non-encyclopedic. ...is one of a small group of cable industry pioneers who have designed, built and managed some of cable television’s most successful networks. is promotional, especial the words "industry pioneers", "most successful". This is known as puffery or peacock words on Wikipedia.

As you are are a paid editor inserting promotional material, you are in violation Wikipedia's Terms of Use. See WP:COI, especial the Paid editing section.

If wish to continue to add material to Roger L. Werner's article, please add it to the article's talk page. Make sure that there are references. I will then copy-edit it and transfer material over to the main article. Bgwhite (talk) 05:59, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) The "&associates" part of the login name suggests more than one person; see WP:ROLE. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:06, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Re book citations, thanks Bgwhite, I will use the proper format from now on.Jeagerca (talk) 20:19, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi BGwhite,

BobGold&Associates here (but with a new name per Redrose64's comment) -- I've made the changes you've requested (removal of peacocking and inclusion of sources) to Roger's Bio and have added it to the talk page. If you'd kindly take a look at it for approval and make the changes, this would be greatly appreciated!

My apologies again for not following Wikiepdia's guidelines in the first place -- I was unaware that others had previously attempted to edit the bio, and this is the first page I myself have ever edited.

Best, Chris — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chuppertz (talk • contribs) 20:01, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

BG,

I've made the additional revisions per your request. My apologies for the copyright -- both the original copy I was working with was written by Roger's team so I didn't think there was an issue. The other issues should be fixed too and additional sources have been added. Let me know if we're good to go on this one!

--Chuppertz (talk) 20:29, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Elvis & Nixon

Hello B, will you please remove the redirect Elvis & Nixon and move Draft:Elvis & Nixon to the target namespace page? --Captain Assassin! ^{«T ♦ C ♦ G»} 03:00, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Assassin Done. I haven't heard from you in awhile. Hope you were busy watching movies. Bgwhite (talk) 05:29, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Hahah, yep, a lucky guess :). I was out of internet due to some technical issues, so I had nothing else to do than watching movies. I'm going to apply for the Wikimania Scholarship, what do you say about that? Any help or suggestions? --Captain Assassin! ^{«T ♦ C ♦ G»} 15:47, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Assassin You should apply. It's always good to see the world. I've never gone or applied to go to Wikimania. With it being in Mexico City, there will be less scholarships from your area handed out due to airfare costs. Following year will be in the Philippines or Italy. Bgwhite (talk) 18:03, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Yeah sure, thanks. --Captain Assassin! ^{«T ♦ C ♦ G»} 03:18, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

!

Always give a yell, when you want help

Hafspajen (talk) 23:55, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

California Valley Miwok Tribe - edits to and content

Thank you for your surveillance and attention to this matter. My name is Chadd Everone, and since 2003, I have serve as the Deputy for the Hereditary Member group of this Tribe as well as the Hereditary Chief, Yakima Dixie.

I was only recently alerted to the problems on the Wikipedia page for this Tribe; and they were my changes that evoked this controversy.

Briefly, since 1999, there has been a dispute in who should be the Federally Recognized Authority for this Tribe. On the one hand, there is Yakima Dixie and the Hereditary Members (numbering some 220 adults and 300 children) who are lineal descendants of the original 12 individuals whom the BIA identified as members in the original census of 1915 plus the lineal descendants of other Miwoks who were named in the 1929 Indian Census Roll for Calaveras County. On the other hand is the Burley family (Silvial Burley, her two daughters, one granddaughter, and her husband, James "Tiger" Paulk who is sometime identified as a member. He is non-Indian but very actively involved as a protagonist). Yakima Dixie in 1998, allowed the Burley family into the Tribe as a gesture of generosity, so a remote relative who was destitute and in need of some government services. Mr. Dixie did not have the authority to enroll any members because there existed both is brother (Melvin) and many other members, who would have to have been involved in enrollment issues. But the agents of the Bureau of Indian Affairs did not notify Yakima of this or post proper notices to other members; and the BIA accepted that enrollment and soon thereafter Silvia Burley conveyed the authority and funding to herself and family, eventually disenrolling Mr. Dixie from his own Tribe. Dixie with me as his Deputy and other members of the tribe appealed the situation. In attempting to hold on to their position, the Burleys have used all kinds of court maneuvers (all failing) as well as defamatory and slanderous press releases (on myself, our attorneys, BIA officials, various members of the Tribe) in various media as well as, apparently, the Wikipedia site. The Hereditary members have shunned any kind of public counter attack as shameful and a disgrace to the tribe and have retained their pleadings in formal courts and administrative proceedings. For that reason, when I posted the changes to the Wikipedia site: http://www.californiavalleymiwok.com/wikipedia/ I did not go into the details of the dispute but rather referred to the standing Court order which is before the BIA and which gives a more than adequate history of the dispute and was base on review of 260 documents in the administrative record for the case. https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2011cv0160-88

The Hereditary Members issued this suit and won the judgement, which nullified that BIA's determination that the Burleys are the authority and their 1998 Resolution as a legitimate governing document; it ruled that the determination of the then Assistant Secretary, Larry Echo Hawk, which caused our suit, was a violation of the Administrative Procedures Act, being arbitrary, capricious, and acting outside the law. The Court noted the illegal actions of Wilson Pipestem, a lobbyist in the hire of the Burleys which essentially wrote the Determination for Asst. Sec. Echo Hawk. And the Court returned the matter back to the BIA requiring that it be redone according to the guidelines in the Order, which would have to mean that the Hereditary Members regain control of the authority. That re-determination is still pending.

In the existing Wikipedia site, you have taken out the defamatory and libelous material - thank you. You should not leave the Burleys as the authority because there is no Federally Recognized Authority and all services and funding to the tribe have been frozen. Plus, in the current Directory of Tribal Leaders, there is no authority listed for this Tribe.

Further, there are not two tribe. The original name was the Sheep Ranch Rancheria of Me-wuk Indians. In 2002, Silvia Burley had the name changes, and officially, it is now California Valley Miwok Tribe. Burley retains control of the government web-site for tribes; and although we have protested, it is apparent that the BIA will make no move until the determination is final.

I recommend that you reinstate and freeze the text which I originally submitted - See Hereditary Members section at: http://www.californiavalleymiwok.com/wikipedia/ That leaves the history and dispute to be explained in the Court Order. I would keep this text for the site until there is a court validated final determination of authority by the BIA as evidence by the reinstatement of services and benefits.

This is an important matter; very literally, the destiny of hundreds of people depend on the outcome; and it is in the best interest of the Wikipedia community to have site factual and not used for polemics and propaganda.

Again, on behalf of the Tribe, I express appreciation for your diligence and effort. If you have any questions, please communicate them to me at Chadd Everone <administration@californiavalleymiwok.com>

---

Chadd Everone — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ooh-ya-ah-yoo (talk • contribs) 02:05, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Relisting of TfD for Template:Infobox academic division

BGW, Template:Infobox academic division has been re-nominated for deletion/merger, following a DRV. You participated in the previous TfD discussion, and I thought you would appreciate the opportunity to comment on the newly re-opened/re-listed discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 January 22#Template:Infobox academic division. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 07:30, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Geographical Regions of Turkey

I would like to inform you that you have added completely incorrect information in the article by reverting my edits. If you want me to use "Infobox Settlement", I will. But please revert yourself. --Mttll (talk) 07:11, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Mttll No. You removed the correct infobox. You removed the referenced population section. You removed the maps showing the provinces. You removed history sections. You moved the pages incorrectly. You removed alot of correct information. One doesn't throw out good and bad info in an article because of "incorrect information". One fixes the article. Bgwhite (talk) 07:17, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Do you know why I removed them? Because they are incorrect. For your information, there are two kind of regions in Turkey: (1) Geographical regions whose borders do not overlap with the borders of the administrative provinces (2) Statistical regions whose borders overlap with the borders of the administrative provinces. That article is about the geographical region. Those maps and (outdated) population figures actually describe the statistical Aegean Region.

• Aegean Region (statistical)
• Aegean Region (geographica)

Please, please understand the difference. This is actually elementary information that has been incorrectly presented in Wikipedia for some reason. Please, please let me fix it. --Mttll (talk) 07:24, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

My friend, I honestly don't think you know what you are doing. I beg you to stop. --Mttll (talk) 07:29, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Just compare them yourself.

• A correct map of the geographical Black Sea Region whose borders do not overlap with the borders of the administrative provinces as they shouldn't: [4]
• An incorrect map of the geographical Black Sea Region whose borders overlap with the borders of the administrative provinces despite the fact that they shouldn't: [5]

I'm sure you can see the difference yourself. --Mttll (talk) 07:42, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

I stand firm. All current EU and proposed EU countries are divided up in statistical "regions". That has no effect on the geographical regions. There was no need to move the current page. Only add a redirect from Aegean Region (geographica) to Aegean Region.

For Aegean Region, I do not see that the map is out of date. I do not see a difference in the Black Sea Region maps except for one is higher resolution over another. I see the same maps used elsewhere, including on reliable sites. What you are proposing is to wipe out most maps currently used with other, lesser resolution maps. You do not have that authority. Get consensus first from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Turkey

Be very careful of accusing other that they don't know what they are doing... By your own actions, you do not know what you are doing when it comes to Wikipedia. Bgwhite (talk) 07:53, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Here is a map showing both the geographical and provincial borders: Link. It is not a matter of resolution, the borders most certainly do not overlap. --Mttll (talk) 08:01, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Again, you need to take it up with Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Turkey before you proceed. You are unilaterally changing alot of maps. If the maps in the current articles are wrong, it is because one person unilaterally changed the maps. One needs to consult with more people before proceeding.

Regardless of regional map, this does not excuse removing the provincial map in each article. It does not excuse you from removing written material in the article. Bgwhite (talk) 08:17, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Actually, I had brought this issue to WikiProject Turkey nearly 3 years ago and no one seemed interested in it. See for yourself:

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Turkey/Archive_7#Extensive_work_needed_on_.22regions.22_of_Turkey

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Turkey/Archive_7#Map_of_geographical_regions_of_Turkey

How many more years was I supposed to wait before being WP:BOLD as Wikipedia encourages me to be and make some "unilateral" changes?

Anyway, if you revert yourself in Aegean Region, Black Sea Region, Central Anatolia, Eastern Anatolia, Mediterranean Region and Southeastern Anatolia, perhaps I can go and write some lenghty justifications for my bold edits in WikiProject Turkey's talk page and see if people who are familiar with the subject have anything to say this time. If you don't, I honestly don't know what's left for me to do.--Mttll (talk) 08:46, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

You asked three years ago and were turned down. In your opinion, because someone else was "bold", they screwed up all the maps. You were also "bold" in removing text and other maps that shouldn't have been removed. You were "bold" and messed up the Infobox and moving of the pages. Being "bold" can mean doing things wrong or right. I'm more interested in doing things right rather than quickly. Ask at the talk page. It shouldn't be more than 3-5 sentences. If nobody responds in a few days come back and we can hash it out. I am starting to see your reasoning. Maybe we can find some Turks in the meantime to help out. I know some Greeks, but they probably would like to see Turkey removed from all maps :) Bgwhite (talk) 09:02, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Okay, I will just do that. --Mttll (talk) 09:08, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Mttll Could you ask at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Turkey about your changes. Point them to where you have already written, such as Talk:Eastern Anatolia Region. More people look at Turkey's talk page than the individual pages. What you've done on the region's talk page is really nice. Makes things easier to understand for slow people like me. Bgwhite (talk) 09:55, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

California Valley Miwok Tribe - further edits

Bgwhite:

There cannot be two Tribes. There are two contending authorities for the 1 Federally Recognized tribe. This is a important legal distinction because only a smaller percentage of the Indians who claim to be a tribe are, in fact, recognized as such by the Federal government and therefore entitled to the status of being a domestic sovereign nation. Only Federally Recognized tribes are listed annually in the Federal Register.

The original name of this Federally Recognized tribe was Sheep Ranch Rancheria of Mw-wuk Indians. In the Federal Register of January 31, 1979, page 7236, the Tribe is listed as the original name: "Sheep Ranch Rancheria of Me-Wuk Indians, California". See:

http://www.californiavalleymiwok.com/1979-01-31-Fed-Reg-notice-of-recognized-%20tribes.pdf

In 2002, without the permission of the Hereditary Chief, Yakima Dixie and the other known members, Burley had the government change the name of the Tribe. Thus, in the Federal Register of April 4, 2008, page 18553, (evidencing the transition from the original name to the current name) the name of the Tribe is listed as:

"California Valley Miwok Tribe, California (formerly the Sheep Ranch Rancheria of Me-Wuk Indians of California)"

http://www.californiavalleymiwok.com/2008-04-04-FederallyRecognizedTribes.pdf

By 2014, the original name had dropped and the Tribe is identified by its present name "California Valley Miwok Tribe, California". See page 4749:

http://www.californiavalleymiwok.com/2014-01-29-Federal-Register-Vol-79-19.pdf

The location of the Hereditary Group can be either my address as its representative or the ancestral location of Sheep Ranch, California.

Burley's address in Stockton, however, is problematic being that the personal house which she purchased with the tribe's money was repossessed several years ago and the family is in the process of being evicted. (In fact, the court docket says that the trial for unlawfull detainer (eviction) is supposed to be this very afternoon.)

Again, to cite the history and background for this Tribe, you cannot get a better, more authoritative and neutral source than the recent Court Order, under which the determination of authority is presently pending.

https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2011cv0160-88

The factual background is from page 2 to 14. That is based on a judicial review of 260 documents in the administrative record for the case.

In my opinion, rather that Quoting that history section, it would be better to simply make reference to the Court Order.

Again, I would argue for a one, very basic Wikipedia page, similar to the one which I originally constructed and let the reference to the documents argue the case and state the facts.

http://www.californiavalleymiwok.com/wikipedia/2015-01-12-Hereditary-Members-Wikipedia-page.pdf

As before, your attention to this important matter is greatly appreciated; and if I can be further assistance, please let me know.

Chadd Everone, Deputy — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.205.51.50 (talk) 22:42, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

@Ooh-ya-ah-yoo, 108.205.51.50, and Firetopaz: I should have worded things better. What I met was "two" groups and not tribes. Knowing me, I'll say two tribes again. Also knowing me, I will get the two groups mixed up at some point.

As I said on the talk page, I'd like to deal with pre-1999 first for two reasons... 1) less contentious part 2) Part that is more "interesting" to the casual reader. Also, could messages be left at the article's talk page. I'd like to keep everything together. Bgwhite (talk) 23:05, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Atlas Entertainment

Hello B, would you please delete the redirect Atlas Entertainment and move the draft Draft:Atlas Entertainment to its required target? Thanks. --Captain Assassin! ^{«T ♦ C ♦ G»} 03:40, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Thank you very Much ShrivatsaNayak (talk) 17:38, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Talk:BhaleSultan

Hi B. Shouldn't Talk:BhaleSultan be moved to Talk:Bhale Sultan as well? -- Sam ^Sing! 11:18, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Sam Thank you for finding my mistake. It has been done. Bgwhite (talk) 18:42, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Police Ranks In America

Hi Bgwhite,

I'm not sure why, but the changes I made to Police Ranks of the USA (Sorry, my mistake) have been undone by you. I was looking at that page in connection with my work, and I thought that the long list of ranks might have benefited from conversion into a table. Can I ask why it was undone? Thanks,

Artemis236 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.131.213.219 (talk) 12:52, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

There is no "Police Ranks In America" article. What article are you talking about? Bgwhite (talk) 19:00, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Morris Minor (1928)

Hi, I see the tables of production etc down the bottom have suffered a very sharp decline so they may no longer be readily comprehended. Do you know why? Thanks & regards, Eddaido (talk)

Eddaido It would help if I could use the right word in the tables. Fixed. Bgwhite (talk) 18:56, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, I guessed I must have broken Basic Law somehow. Can't say the current display appeals but if it is legit (and the other was not) great. I don't understand "the right word in the tables". Why didn't I get a date and time on my first question? I'm off to check in the bathroom mirror in case something dreadful has happened! Thanks, Eddaido (talk) 20:56, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Eddaido I put in class="wikipedia" instead of class="wikitables". HELP:TABLE is a good resource on tables. The date and time didn't display because you typed three tildas (~~~) instead of four. If you type five tildas, just the date is displayed. Nothing dreadful is going to happen to me for another 2 1/2 hours. That's when I see my wife for the first time today. Well, that is dreadful and scary. :) Bgwhite (talk) 21:56, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

What needs to happen to include Tammy Haas in list of unsolved deaths?

Bgwhite, What needs to happen to have the unresolved death of Tammy Haas included in the list of unsolved deaths? I noticed you removed the section on her. Her death is a pretty well-known case, especially in the South Dakota-Nebraska region. It prompted investigations by law enforcement agencies from two states, as well as the FBI. A novel has been written about it. There are numerous newspaper and television news articles (including from regional CBS- and NBC-affiliated news outlets) about it. If one searches for her name on the Internet, multiple pages of links will result. If the section on her requires more citations from legit news sources and articles, that should not be a problem for a revision. Thank you for your help! Harry Yelreh (talk) 20:05, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Harry Yelreh In most cases, a person would need an article first. An article usually establishes nobility of a person. In Haas' case, the refs were a reader supplied photo and local media. Nothing stands out. Unfortunately, there are thousands of murders every year in the U.S. They vast majority only have local coverage. Vast majority wouldn't receive an article. WP:MURDEROF is an essay on murder articles that can help clarify some things. The essay is not "law", just an opinion. Bgwhite (talk) 20:15, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Dear Bgwhite!
Why did you cut the article about the outstanding world-famous scientist Alexander Bolonkin to small notes?
You have removed all of his achievements in science, his scientific works, biography, links to the sources, sources themselves, the evidence of his significance and leaving only a short introduction to his name?
I beg to recover the article. All links and sources recently tested and true.
I am waiting you answer ASAP in E-mail: kruglyakb@gmail.com and my page ABA888
ABA888 (talk) 21:03, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Government Aircraft

Could you help me revert move of "Government Aircraft" to "Japanese Air Force One" because it is breaking the links, as the "Government Aircraft" refers to many. Someone moved the page name from Japanese Air Force One to Government Aircraft which appears to not be in line with WP:COMMONNAME.

Nippon-koku seifu senyoki which means Japan Government Exclusive Aircraft not "Government Aircraft" is refer in english callsign of Japan Air Self Defense Force as "Japanese Air Force One" and Japanese Air Force Two during on official business, and Cygnus One and Cygnus Two when operating outside of official business.

Regards ans thanks. Keijhae If you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page.

Bracket error

I believe I've corrected the bracket error over at Raúl Castillo, but if you can give it a look and let me know if it needs correction, and more specifically how that can be achieved, I'd appreciate the help. I will try integrating the template into the citation, if that's causing the error. Thanks!Luminum (talk) 01:38, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Luminum It is not a reliable source and shouldn't be in the article. An instragram/blog/twitter post by someone talking about Catillo. See WP:SELFPUBLISH. Bgwhite (talk) 01:42, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Bgwhite It meets WP:SELFPUB. The Instagram post is the subject in question (Castillo) talking about himself and his relationship with Mitchell-Cárdenas. It contains an early bit of conversation from Mitchell-Cárdenas to Castillo. Under WP:SELFPUB: "Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the self-published source requirement that they be published experts in the field...", etc.Luminum (talk) 01:46, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Luminum talking about himself and his relationship with Mitchell-Cárdenas SELFPUB states, "it does not involve claims about third parties;" Talking about Mitchell-Cárdenas is involving third parties. It is an unreliable source. Bgwhite (talk) 01:56, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Bgwhite Feel free to advise, but the message trail that also includes Mitchell-Cárdenas's substantiating statement from his own Twitter account is included in that Instagram message (the original source of the image). Essentially, Party A makes claim about third party (met at age 11, name of first band) which is supported by statement by the third party ("long-time friend") in the shared self-published item (the photo) from both parties. This was also a statement (that they met in 6th grade) made in the Gozamos interview that was attached to the statement (and erroneously removed). In effect, it is a public communication across social media evidencing their relationship, further supported by an additional reference from a third party source (interview). Would it advisable to also attach the opposing third party's Twitter as an additional source to further validate the claim? (https://twitter.com/mitchellcardena/status/539795127334481920) Luminum (talk) 02:14, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Luminum You've got primary, self-published sources, talking about 3rd parties, and published on a notorious unreliable platform. None of that sounds good. The best bet is to find a valid reference. Bgwhite (talk) 06:49, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Bgwhite So even though the fact that they are childhood friends and started bands together is sourced with a reliable secondary sources (the Gozamos.com published interview and the two Texas Monitor published interviews and event articles), the details of what specific age in their childhood they met is considered unreliable, even though both of their statuses agree about the information they are discussing between one another? The fact that they were childhood friends is reliably sourced. So that's not a problem (I assume when the Gozamos reference was originally removed, it was by accident). But since the claim made (that they met when they were 11 years old, that their first band was called Freaks of Nature) is 1) not unduly self-gratifying nor exceptional, 2) is about events directly related to the source (he was Mitchell-Cardenas's friend, they created bands together), 3) and lacks reasonable doubt as to it's authenticity (re: not an exceptional claim to make about a fairly mundane topic), it's not good? In fact, the criterion in question (claims about a third party) seems to not be an issue here because Mitchell-Cardenas's original tweet is about Castillo's friendship and Castillo's Instagram message links that message in response about their friendship; the third party is involved in the discussion at hand, and both messages can be reliably traced back to both parties' accounts, and the accounts are verifiably theirs. That doesn't make sense to me.

As for the platform's unreliability, given the criteria established by WP:SELFPUB that such platforms can be used at all, it seems that the issue of unreliability with regard to a living person's own claims about themselves is allowable and the unreliability of the platforms themselves a non-issue barring very specific circumstances. I wouldn't have any earnest reason to believe that Castillo and Mitchell-Cardenas are conspiring to fabricate a lie about what age they were when they became friends (or even that Castillo is attempting to do so about something so unexceptional in scale and when Mitchell-Cardenas is a recognized participant in their exchange and tagged within the message to maintain him in the exchange), especially if their childhood friendship is already a verifiable, sourced piece of information. It seems like a very literal application of WP:SELFPUB's criteria rather than its principle to reject it solely on the technicality of a third party's involvement without regard to the third party's level of participation in the media exchange; none would be immediately concerning whereas direct participation, not so much. I don't intend these as any sort of attack at all, but such an application would immediately strike me as within the realm of WP:BURO and WP:PRINCIPLE.

As an example, if CNN reports that Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt bought a house together in California, then Jolie tweets that she loves their new house in California, and Brad retweets her message and adds that indeed, he too loves their new house in San Francisco, California, I don't see how the selfpub info that the house is not just in California, but specifically in San Francisco would be considered unreliable just because the claim also involves the third party of Jolie. Sure, a secondary source corroborating that Jolie and Pitt's new house is in San Francisco, California would be preferable, but the validity of a primary source in that kind of circumstance in lieu of a secondary source doesn't seem like one that would earnestly raise a flag normally associated with claims made in primary sources. It would be a different story, however, if it was a case of Pitt alone tweeting that he and Jolie are buying a house to San Francisco, California and there were no secondary sources at all.

Anyway, I hate to take up much more of your time on this. I appreciate your willingness to parse out the issue with me and for providing your perspective. It has assisted me immensely. If you feel this issue requires further discussion, I'm happy to continue it. I simply wish to be considerate of your energy and time. Thank you! Luminum (talk) 07:47, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

You've are parsing things too much. As an example, if CNN reports that... CNN is a reliable source, how is this related to tweeting? If they indeed tweet about the house, it isn't involving third parties. They bought it. The tweet could be used, but as soon as the CNN source pops up, one uses the CNN source. Not all sources are created equal... that is the key. A reliable secondary source will always trump a primary, self-published source.

Again... You've got primary, self-published sources, talking about 3rd parties, and published on a notorious unreliable platform. You've got two things that violate the rules (primary/3rd parties) and two that are ok (self-published, twitter). I can't count how many times I've removed a twitter reference because it turned out not to be true... people lie.

In the end, you've got a ref that violates the 3rd party rule. It can't be used. There is no way around that. Even if it was allowed, I'd say find a better source. There has to be a better source out there. Bgwhite (talk) 08:16, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

If they indeed tweet about the house, it isn't involving third parties. They bought it. That is my point. Two individuals cannot tweet about something together. It is only considered "them tweeting" because both individuals are discussing the same event that they both participated in with one another. By the nature of social media platforms like Twitter or Instagram, two people cannot tweet together. They would each have to mention one another in a message made from their individual accounts. So in the scenario depicted, Jolie tweeting from her user account that she and Pitt bought a house is, as you argue, her making a claim about herself and a 3rd party (Pitt). Likewise, if Pitt retweeted her statuses from his user account and added information about their purchase, it would be him making a claim about himself and a 3rd party (Jolie), and therefore neither is technically viable (I guess the logic here being that Pitt could be lying in his response about their house being in San Francisco).

The tweet could be used, but as soon as the CNN source pops up, one uses the CNN source. As stated, the CNN source only contains less specific details than those provided in the tweets. The information provided by CNN is that their house is in the state of California. The tweet by Pitt contains the more specific information that the house is in the city of San Francisco within California. Therefore, CNN could only be used as a source to support the statement that Jolie and Pitt purchased a house in California. It could not be used to support the statement that Jolie and Pitt purchased a house in San Francisco. And, based on your argument, since Pitt's individual tweet would technically be considered making a claim about a third party (Jolie) (which is natural, because she is the other person who bought the house with him), it could not be used to support the statement that their house is in San Francisco either. Obviously, were there a CNN source (or any other reliable source) that also included the more specific details mentioned by Pitt, then there would be no question. Ditch the tweet and use the more reliable source that includes the newer, more detailed information. But that does not exist. The CNN source is limited in what it provides and Pitt's tweet is the only source of more detailed information.

The scenario is the same with Raúl Castillo and Roy Mitchell-Cardenas. A published Gozamos.com interview and articles by The Monitor state that Castillo and Mitchell-Cardenas became friends in childhood and started bands together. Mitchell-Cardenas tweets a picture of himself and Castillo, stating that indeed, they are childhood friends. Castillo "retweets"* Mitchell-Cardenas's status and adds that the two of them became childhood friends at age 11 while attending middle school and gives the name of their first band. So both the Gozamos interview and the Monitor articles could only support a statement that they became friends in childhood and started bands together. It could not appropriately support a statement that they met in childhood at age 11 in middle school, and that the name of the first band they created together was "X". And, according to your argument, Castillo's retweet could not be used to support that statement either because it technically makes a claim that involved Mitchell-Cardenas, therefore violating the 3rd party criterion in WP:BLPPRIMARY while not violating any of the others.

Since you stated in the example that If they indeed tweet about the house, it isn't involving third parties. They bought it. The tweet could be used..., I don't understand why your argument is that Castillo and Mitchell-Cardenas tweeting about the details of their friendship (instead of the details of buying a house) is contrarily not viable. Jolie and Pitt could tweet about the details of the house they bought and those could be used as (less than ideal, but technically viable) sources, but Castillo and Mitchell-Cardenas tweet about the details of their friendship and those should not be used because they are not technically viable sources? What differentiates the two scenarios? Certainly, it's not because two parties are tweeting about their house, rather than their friendship. Luminum (talk) 11:57, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Vince Molinaro

It's virtually identical to the previous version, but I've declined your G4. This is because the article was speedied G7, not deleted as a result of the discussion, which invalidates G4. The discussion was in a no consensus state, as I read it, but with a slight tendency towards delete. I'd suggest AfD again, as it looks very much like a puff piece to me - that picture would put me off anything they were involved with (that sort of thing might appeal to Americans - over here it tends to elicit the reaction "smarmy git!"). I've not checked refs - there seem to be a few more than the earlier version had. Peridon (talk) 11:40, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Peridon It was improperly speedied. One cannot use G7 during an AfD. Instructions for Afd specifically say, Feel free to edit the article, but the article must not be blanked', ... until the discussion is closed. Article was going to be deleted until the G7 was applied with less than 18 hours to go. G7 was invalid, AfD results were going to be delete, thus, G4 still applies. Bgwhite (talk) 23:56, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

In that case,the AfD should have been reopened... You can't be certain until the last seconds which way many AfDs will finish up. I've seen a large majority delete turn into a large majority keep - because someone made some interesting and well-referenced additions. (Virtually all if not all the deletes turned to keeps, and the couple of keeps turned to deletes. The subject of the article was not a happy little bunny...) I'm happy with Primefac's move, and DGG et al have talked to the acceptor from AfC. Peridon (talk) 10:13, 1 February 2015 (UTC)