User talk:Bgwhite/Archive 28

Again visual problems
I'm getting those visual problems again, this time when I logged in, I got large fonts on every page. The fonts are very strange and enough large. -- Captain Assassin! «T ♦ C ♦ G» 01:56, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * , see Typography refresh Bgwhite (talk) 04:33, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Got it, it's default now. -- Captain Assassin! «T ♦ C ♦ G» 06:40, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Bot goes overboard
Your bot, BG19bot, twice removed bolding of vectors (E, B, and A) from section titles at Inhomogeneous electromagnetic wave equation. However in mathematics articles, vectors are supposed to be bolded to distinguish them from scalars. JRSpriggs (talk) 07:29, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * , headings are already bolded. They do not need to be bolded twice.  If you look at your version and the bot's version, visually they are the same.  This might change come Wednesday as the typography of Wikipedia is getting a "refresh".  See post above towards the top under "Typography Refresh" Bgwhite (talk) 18:54, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * It's one of those things that varies from browser to browser. In Wikipedia, level 1 and level 2 headings are normal weight (it's the large size - 188% and 150% respectively) that makes them seem bold. Since they aren't explicitly bolded to begin with, it's possible to boldface a level 2 heading and have it show as heavier type in almost any browser.
 * Headings of levels 3 to 6 inclusive are bolded as part of the Wikipedia skin styling, and this is where the browser variation comes in. If these headings include bold text, some browsers will say "it's already bolded - I'll ignore that instruction", whilst others will say "I'll make it extra-bold" (the CSS spec allows for 1000 levels of boldness although it describes no more than nine, and warns that some browsers provide fewer).
 * Back to the point: MOS:BOLD says "Bolded headings, though technically possible, are not appropriate." which isn't an explicit prohibition; and MOS:HEADINGS doesn't mention boldface at all. -- Red rose64 (talk) 20:52, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * FYI... There are currently no articles in English Wikipedia with bolded headings. Bgwhite (talk) 21:31, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * To Bgwhite: I do see a difference in the two titles in question, although it is less noticeable than in ordinary text. I use Firefox and the Monobook skin. JRSpriggs (talk) 06:33, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * , don't use Monobook as a reference for what other people will see. Readers use Vector.  When I look at what readers will see, I don't have the browser logged into Wikipedia.  It is not noticeable in Chrome, Opera or Safari.  It is a very small difference in Firefox. I've got two versions of IE.  One is noticeable (more than Firefox) and one isn't noticeable.   No math articles use bold in headlines.  As bold headlines "are not appropriate" and no other math article use bold headlines, I see no reason to bold here, especially when the difference isn't all that noticeable. Bgwhite (talk) 06:54, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * OK. JRSpriggs (talk) 03:57, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * , & .  With the new typography in place, I took a look at the bold headings again.  I can't see a difference between bold and not bold in any browser.  However, the bold does show up in the ToC in all browsers.  I can't remember if it showed up before or not.  They were going to update the look of the ToC with the latest update but pulled back at the last moment (If I remember correctly).  Maybe it's time to think about changing MOS to allow bold in headings if it now shows up in the ToC?  Links... [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Inhomogeneous_electromagnetic_wave_equation&oldid=601617219 bold] & [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Inhomogeneous_electromagnetic_wave_equation&oldid=602227913 no bold].
 * I also noticed the text looking much better in Firefox and IE. Looks like crap in Chrome.  I haven't checked my settings yet.  Bgwhite (talk) 07:46, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * , &  what about changing bold to italics on the example above? I do not like the idea of bold in the ToC that much. -- Magioladitis (talk) 07:52, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * IIRC bold has showed up in the TOC for a long time. I put together a short test page at . On that, I see no visual difference between the first and second subheadings in Chrome, Firefox, IE8, Opera, Safari, but using the "inspect element" feature of Firefox reveals that in the second subheading, the letters E and B have a font-weight of 900 and the rest of that subheading has a font-weight of 700 (as does the whole of the first and third subheadings).
 * Unfortunately, in mathematics, italic and boldface have completely different meanings. E, E and E represent three different values. See Typographical conventions in mathematical formulae. -- Red rose64 (talk) 08:25, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Going through my watchlist (and WP:VPT accounts for most of it), I have come across . This gives me the impression that there are at least two ways of making boldface text: one is to use a normal-weight font (the Arimo 400 mentioned there) and apply what that post refers to as "faux-bold"; another is to use two fonts - one normal-weight and one that is already boldface (the Arimo 700 mentioned there). If "faux-bold" is applied to Arimo 700, it might be emboldened still further. I would say that the possibility of emboldening parts of a subheading depends not just on browser, but also upon the font families that are installed. Since we cannot control browser, and cannot completely control the font families (just because a particular setup has Arial doesn't necessarily mean that it also has Arial Bold), we cannot assume that it is possible to embolden parts of a subheading - but we cannot assume that it's impossible either. We must aim for maximum compatibility - Inhomogeneous electromagnetic wave equation does this by having the very first sentence as "Maxwell's equations can directly give inhomogeneous wave equations for the electric field E and magnetic field B." so that the terms referred to in the subheading adopt the correct font weight early on in the paragraph. If this had not been done, some redundancy could have been introduced, for example by introducing the paragraph with "The E and B fields, which represent the electric and magnetic fields respectively, ..." -- Red rose64 (talk) 09:21, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Vice (2015 film)
Please take a look at User:Captain Assassin!/sandbox14 and move it to Vice (2015 film) - Thanks. -- Captain Assassin! «T ♦ C ♦ G» 18:40, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

St. Mary's College
Thanks for your fixes in the article! I am in the process of adding more ISBN citations. Is there something that I need to do to avoid further errors with them? :-)

2602:306:BDA0:97A0:466D:57FF:FE90:AC45 (talk) 04:34, 5 April 2014 (UTC)


 * . The big thing is the references.  You don't have to write out the same references every time.  Using the notation will save time and make the references section less cluttered.   For the ISBNs, it's just the ISBN and the number.  No commas, colons or labeling them ISBN-10 or ISBN-13.   With wikimagic, it becomes ISBN 0123456789, where you can click on the number to go search for the book. Bgwhite (talk) 05:12, 5 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks! Where can I learn about how to do the "ref name=" notation? Also, what's "Wikimagic"?

2602:306:BDA0:97A0:466D:57FF:FE90:AC45 (talk) 05:07, 5 April 2014 (UTC)


 * , it is real easy. This short paragraph show how.  You can also look at the article for examples.   "Wikimagic" is a made up word that just means the software does the rest of the work.  Bgwhite (talk) 05:12, 5 April 2014 (UTC)


 * "Wikimagic" is a made up word that just means the software does the rest of the work.


 * I like that! :-)


 * Thanks for the info!


 * 2602:306:BDA0:97A0:466D:57FF:FE90:AC45 (talk) 05:19, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The page WP:ISBN explains the circumstances under which an ISBN will be linked automatically, and also uses the term "magic links" twice. -- Red rose64 (talk) 13:55, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Call for comments
Hello Bgwhite, thank you again for your edits on DD_index.

If you have some spare moments, please have a look at the two Afd discussions on : (1) afd List of dictatorships (2) afd List of modern dictators in Latin America. Note that List of dictatorships and List of modern dictators in Latin America used DD_index as a source. I created the maps and sortable tables as part of my submissions to Wikimania 2014 using country codes: A data curation hub for students, journalists and writers: Country data reuse and coordination. Your comments on any of the above are welcome and appreciated. Thanks.--(comparingChinese Wikipedia vs Baidu Baike by hanteng) 15:49, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Somnia (film)
Please take a look at User:Captain Assassin!/sandbox14 and move it to Somnia (film) - Thanks. -- Captain Assassin! «T ♦ C ♦ G» 05:24, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Hello B, will you please check here? -- Captain Assassin! «T ♦ C ♦ G» 10:43, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

request to reapply BG19bot
I've been working on the Klingon grammar article in my Sandbox, on text formatting (see Talk:Klingon grammar) and a whole lot of larger and smaller text edits. Before installing my revision, I checked the page's history since I made my sandbox working copy, and found that your BG19bot had cleaned up the tables. Naturally, my replacement effectively undid that work. Would you please have the bot redo the table fixing? Thanks. You can me if you want to discuss it. --Thnidu (talk) 06:21, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * , thank you for notifying me. No problem, I'll run it again.  Bgwhite (talk) 16:20, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot, . --Thnidu (talk) 04:26, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Black Desert
Hi. This edit, with summary "Restore the removal of a reference", reinserted the spam link that was previously deliberately removed. The link is to a web page that contains no relevant information about the release of an English language client or the developer's efforts to partner with a publisher for N.America/EU. It also reinserted an external link to the homepage of mmocast, again not directly relevant to this specific game or article. Without any direct relevance or necessity, they are simply spam. I have reverted the insertion again. Blackberry Sorbet (talk • contribs) 08:36, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Your revert
Hi Bgwhite,

In regards to your revert in Newspaper endorsements in the Canadian federal election, 2006 all I see now is:


 * Endorsing the Conservatives[edit]
 * Template:Colspan

not sure what you are seeing? XOttawahitech (talk) 02:57, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Never mind User:117Avenue fixed it. XOttawahitech (talk) 13:28, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Some baklava for you!

 * I removed it. Not sure what you were trying to do.  Also, you left your signature, which never goes in articles.  What was your original intent with the edit? Bgwhite (talk) 03:57, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Dumka railway station
See: Please have the decency to respect other editors contributions while reverting vandalism.--Aaron-Tripel (talk) 22:51, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * , have the decency not to assume bad faith and have the decency to actually read the diff. I said and did nothing wrong.  It was you who got mad and lost control.   I get reverted around eight times a day.  1/2 by vandals. 1/2 by editors reverting my edit and the the  vandalism edits before me.  If you are going to play with AWB to change alot of articles, get used to it.  Bgwhite (talk) 22:58, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * In my notification pane a message appeared "Your edit on Dumka railway station has been reverted by Bgwhite". Then I read "Vandalism by new user". Nothing more.--Aaron-Tripel (talk) 23:18, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * , exactly my point. You assumed bad faith and you didn't investigate.  In the notification pane, there is the "see changes" link.  Next time, you need to click on that link, investigate and see what was changed.  You will get a notification of a revert even if your one edit is among 20 edits reverted.  The notification doesn't mean your edit was reverted, it could be just a casualty in reverting other bad edits.  Bgwhite (talk) 04:23, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Holoprosencephaly
The reversion you made here seems rather nonsensical. I think you need to revert further. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.198.64.54 (talk) 10:44, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
 * , you are correct. I didn't notice the "Sonic Hedgehog" mention.  It has been reverted further.  Thank you  Bgwhite (talk) 18:02, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Glitch?
Hello Bgwhite. This edit reordered some of the text. All fixed now, but if this is an error in an automated tool I thought you would like to know. Regards, Kablammo (talk) 16:48, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Ros de Lanerolle
Many thanks for tidying up the article. Re the refs, I have been informed that the forcing of a fixed number of columns in reference lists has been deprecated in favour of specifying a column size. See template:Reflist#Columns for more on this. So I guess it should be changed back! Proscribe (talk) 16:24, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Looks like it has been changed the past couple of months. I wouldn't have known unless you told me.  Thank you  Bgwhite (talk) 18:20, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Regression (film)
Will you please move User:Captain Assassin!/sandbox14 to Regression (film) - Thanks. -- Captain Assassin! «T ♦ C ♦ G» 02:49, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Training undergoing
A film's training is undergoing, while slated to start shooting on April 22, can it have an article? I think it can, because training's a part of production, not film but production. -- Captain Assassin! «T ♦ C ♦ G» 09:33, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
 * , wait till the film starts shooting. Bgwhite (talk) 18:19, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I've seen some films whose articles were created when training began, but it's okay I'll wait. -- Captain Assassin! «T ♦ C ♦ G» 18:22, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Typos
Previous conversation seems to have been archived. Please cast a critical eye over recent changes to "Water on Mars". There's bound to be a few typos remaining in the references. -- 79.67.241.203 (talk) 14:31, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Air Zim
Hi there Bgwhite, it's been a while since our last contact. Just wanted to ask you about edit. Is there any particular reason for altering the alphabetical order in the references?--Jetstreamer $Talk$ 01:19, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Orphan Black
Have you and that other sci-fi fan seen this? It looks well-made. Drmies (talk) 15:23, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Heard of it, but never seen. --kelapstick(bainuu) 15:25, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh, it's Canadian--never mind. Drmies (talk) 15:27, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
 * It's bad practice to trust anything that comes out of Canada. --kelapstick(bainuu) 15:31, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Also,, May is coming up, I will be expecting my Tulips any time now. --kelapstick(bainuu) 15:39, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
 * . I have seen season one on Netflix.  I wouldn't call it sci-fi except for the clone element.  The actress playing the clones was amazing.  Playing a druggy Brit, uptight Canadian soccer mom, American doctoral student and a psychopath (Dutch?).   It started off slow, but picked up.
 * I really enjoyed the sci-fi show The Returned.  Probably the best show I've seen this past year right after Breaking Bad. It won an International Emmy for Best Drama Series.  It is on streaming Netflix.  I haven't seen the similar American show, Resurrection.
 * I'm sure Drmies has already seen Oculus. One name....Amy Pond. Bgwhite (talk) 18:19, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'm thinking about having her cloned. Drmies (talk) 18:21, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid that after Breaking Bad there's simply nothing else worth watching. M AN d ARAX  •  XAЯA b ИA M  18:37, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
 * You mean after The Killing. Or Twin Peaks! Drmies (talk) 20:39, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
 * You could buy tickets to the premier of State of Bacon (or just find some better references, and redo the summary section). --kelapstick(bainuu) 20:40, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Netflix did have the original movie Sizzling Bacon. I didn't know it was an April Fools prank when we started watching it.  We were really confused when all they showed was bacon cooking.
 * Drmies, by the The Killing, I think you meant Forbrydelsen. The original Danish version is much better than the American/Canadian version.
 * Mandarax, there is hope. Straczynski is back to TV with the upcoming Sense8. Bgwhite (talk) 20:57, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm concerned about the involvement in the Sense8 project of the people from The Matrix, which I didn't like at all., I think I saw part of the pilot of The Killing, but it didn't interest me and I never saw any more. There's a tragic story about Twin Peaks. I had watched the first episode or two, and then a friend arrived from out of town. He said he'd been watching the show and asked me to tape an episode for him. Turns out he didn't need the tape (he had set his VCR at home or something), so he didn't need to watch my copy. But then another friend was interested, and wanted to watch it with me. Unfortunately, we didn't get around to it before another week had arrived. I obviously couldn't watch the new one without having seen the previous one, so naturally I taped the next episode so we could watch both of them in order. I think you can guess where this story is headed. I ended up with the entire series strewn over a bunch of video tapes, which I still have, all still unwatched. I should round those up and get rid of them; if I ever do get around to watching the show, it certainly won't be on tape. M AN d ARAX  •  XAЯA b ИA M  00:42, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Don't worry, it doesn't make any sense whichever order you watch them in. -- Red rose64 (talk) 08:42, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Roy Henry Bowyer-Yin
I would value your comments on this page Fattutor (talk) 20:10, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
 * , I made some copy edits. One thing that struck me King's College.  I have a feeling if you say King's College in England, everybody knows what you mean.  However, people outside of England doesn't know which one.  Could you add a wikilink to the correct place.  Bgwhite (talk) 21:45, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

thank you. I have made the changeFattutor (talk) 09:44, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Error fix #97
Good morning. I had to revert your edit since it completely ruined the formatting (pls check the diff). This is ok, we all sometimes make mistakes, and there is nothing particularly wrong with it. However, since you were using automatic software, it is possible that you could have made a number of similar edits in other articles. Could you please check. Thank you.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:47, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
 * AFAICT, the script removed the  because it thought that it was unbalanced - that is, it didn't realise that  was the matching start of a table. It is for this reason that many templates that start tables have a corresponding template that ends the table - for example,  and  - so as not to confuse the scripts and bots. -- Red rose64 (talk) 11:30, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. It is quite possible, but we still have hundreds if not thousands of articles with the same core (which is btw not mine).--Ymblanter (talk) 11:33, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
 * should we create ? -- Magioladitis (talk) 13:49, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
 * There are only 30 transclusions to the SIoCPoNaRS header, so it wouldn't be painful to add footer template. Might as well add a footer to go along with all the sports and election footers.  I have this strange desire to smirk every time I say footer.  Bgwhite (talk) 19:24, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I created the missing template and added in place in all 28 pages. -- Magioladitis (talk) 20:05, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Great, thank you.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:06, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Paul Blart: Mall Cop 2
Hello B, please move User:Captain Assassin!/sandbox1 to Paul Blart: Mall Cop 2 - It's just a redirect which I created, and has some edits history, but don't merge it please, just remove the redirect and move the sandbox, thanks. -- Captain Assassin! «T ♦ C ♦ G» 11:58, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Summary deletion Kangsax's post on Chinese avant-garde music
Esteemed Colleague, Please help me explain to my students why you summarily deleted almost all of Kangsax's recent post in Culture of the People's Republic of China. Was this simply a reflex on your part? Taken together, the haste of your action and the virtual lack of explanation make it hard to cultivate good new editors from the ranks of diligent students. Please help me make this a learning experience for my students at Longy School of Music. Yours, Ijmusic (talk) 18:45, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * , there was nothing wrong with what was written, but it was a problem of where it was written. The "Culture of China" page is about all culture... dance, music, theatre, film, painting.  The addition by Kangsax had the effect of 1/3 of the article becoming  just about four people.  As an encyclopedia is a summary of a topic, 1/3 of the article about four people became just too much.  I did leave in one paragraph that summarized The Legendary Four.
 * A better spot to add the material would be Music of China. Even better, a stand alone article about classical music in china.  In the Music of China article, below a lot of headings are "Main article: ...."  Creating a stand alone article with it linking into the Music of China article with a "Main Article" link would be best. Bgwhite (talk) 21:51, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Your encouraging response helps us enormously. Many thanks. Yours, Ijmusic (talk) 22:29, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

AWB: cite book
Hi, you cleaned up with AWB, thanks. I note that you (or AWB) changes "date" to "year" in Template:cite book when only a year is given. However, according to the templates documentation, "year: Year of source being referenced. Required with some types of citations; otherwise use date." It seems to me as if no change from "date" to "year" should be made. Note that, using the standard "cite" templates as provided by the toolbar, no "year" parameter is available for "cite book", not even among the "extra fields".

Obviously, if this is an AWB standard change, then we'll need to raise this there, but I'm not sure whether this is standard or your personal change. It's not a big problem in any case, everything still works. Fram (talk) 09:10, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
 * perhaps the documentation changed and AWB uses old documentation? any comment on this? -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:07, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
 * It looks like the "otherwise use date" text was in the doc for at least a year, I haven't checked further back. Fram (talk) 12:23, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
 * It was added in February 2012. -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:33, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Today, similar issue was raised on my talk page by different user. knows about this better.  Occult Zone  ( Talk ) 20:31, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
 * "They" are depreciating/changing parameters for the cite templates, include some date parameters. This started when Lua modules were introduced.  Might as well invite everybody....  would know what is going on in that world.  Bgwhite (talk) 20:44, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Not really. Suggest you ask on the relevant talk page. There is an issue with the toolbar needing updating. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:30, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Raised on Wikipedia talk:AutoWikiBrowser. Fram (talk) 12:49, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

San Andreas (film)
Hello again, please move this User:Captain Assassin!/sandbox4 to San Andreas (film) - which is just a redirect created by me, please don't merge, just remove the redirect and move it, thanks. -- Captain Assassin! «T ♦ C ♦ G» 15:57, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

GJ Reynolds Help
Hey Bgwhite,

Thanks for the edits on the GJ Reynolds page. I had a question: I noticed you removed all the links to the celebrities featured on his radio program. Is that because they weren't credited with links? If so, can I add them back in so long as I reference each one with a link?

Thanks for any help/advice you can offer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BrianAnthonyVI (talk • contribs) 16:52, 14 April 2014 (UTC)


 * . Yes, I removed the celebrities because there was no reference.  Reference has to come from some one other than Reynolds. Bgwhite (talk) 16:55, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Bgwhite! I appreciate the explanation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.117.226.162 (talk) 16:14, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Hey Bgwhite, another quick question as I'm newer to posting and updating pages on Wikipedia -- this particular page continues to say "This article appears to be written like an advertisement" even after several edits from a few folks. How does that text box get removed and is there anything I can do to help make that happen? I certainly didn't mean for this to sound like an advertisement. I want to get better at my Wiki skills for sure. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by BrianAnthonyVI (talk • contribs) 20:19, 22 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Anyone can add or remove the tags. If somebody disagrees with the remove, they may add it back.   So, remove that tag if you feel it deserves to be removed. I just went thru and removed some material.  It was promotional and/or POV.  We should write from a neutral point of view.  We also shouldn't use adjective or adverbs....  Instead of saying, "He is a fantastic manager", it should be written as, "He is a manager".  As the TV should said, "Just the facts mam."  Bgwhite (talk) 20:46, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

ANI
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:33, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

OER inquiry
Hi, I'm sending you this message because you're one of about 300 users who have recently edited an article in the umbrella category of open educational resources (OER) (or open education). In evaluating several projects we've been working on (e.g. the WIKISOO course and WikiProject Open), my colleague Pete Forsyth and I have wondered who chooses to edit OER-related articles and why. Regardless of whether you've taken the WIKISOO course yourself - and/or never even heard the term OER before - we'd be extremely grateful for your participation in this brief, anonymous survey before 27 April. No personal data is being collected. If you have any ideas or questions, please get in touch. My talk page awaits. Thanks for your support! - Sara FB (talk) 20:36, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Lesser
Hi Bgwhite. I'm sure that you agreed to let Lesser Cartographies be the mediator for conflicts on the Kitt page because he has experience and many Wikipedians speak highly of him, but he has made too many mistakes dealing with Duff and me, to the point where I think I have proven sufficiently here that he is unfit to continue being the mediator for problems on the Harp Twins article. I certainly do not trust him. When I blew things out of proportion, as you said, and showed primitive behavior, it was precisely to expose his flaws and build a case against him. The elimination of the shop links isn't so bad if no clear mistakes on his part can be pointed out, but for whatever reason he has disqualified himself, in my opinion, because there ARE too many mistakes. I hope Lesser will agree to let someone else be the referee because we all know that Duff will be back sooner or later, and I really don't want Lesser to be the one in charge of negotiations. Look, you are an administrator, yet you never act like you are superior to me, and it's one of the reasons why I respect you, whereas Lesser is very insolent, which causes serious problems. Please read what I wrote when you have a moment. Thanks as always... Dontreader (talk) 07:50, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
 * , I haven't talked to Lesser, so I don't know what is going thru his mind. I think you have worn him down. You keep after him for the same thing and I don't think he cares anymore.  You've got to drop the Amazon/iTunes reference thing.  Let the Kitt article stand as is and only update with new info.  I know it is easier said than doing it, but you need to let it go. Bgwhite (talk) 06:55, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, . I gave Lesser a hard time because I don't like people with double standards, and who don't treat me with respect (instead, he has insulted me, both subtly and very clearly, as can be seen in the archived discussion on his talk page which I shared with you), but I promise not to mention the Amazon/iTunes stuff again, unless there are new incidents related to that issue. I will let it go, as you put it. What worries me is the future. Duff will come back to cause trouble if the page is updated (unless the updates are totally uncontroversial), and I don't want Lesser to then say HERE I AM to mediate, and give Duff what he wants again. That's my concern. Actually, there have been no new "notable" events in the Harp Twins Revolution, but things happen unexpectedly. Two questions, please:
 * 1. May I update the Singles Releases section? That seems uncontroversial to me. It's just a matter of adding like three more tracks. Or I could do it in my sandbox for you to add them instead if you prefer that.
 * 2. I know you help tons of people, so you forgot to tell me if you think this feature in Metal Hammer magazine is notable enough. It's the blue stuff. I'm not good at diffs, so I apologize if that's not the proper way to show you that material. Metal Hammer is big and very well known among metalheads. Here is how that feature looks. I don't see a reason for not including it in the Kitt article.
 * Finally, you can win a free poster! Seriously! Look! That includes a personalized autograph! Thanks again... Dontreader (talk) 02:41, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * , ping me when you've put your proposed edits in your sandbox and I'll take a look. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 05:56, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * , I don't think you're getting the message. Besides, apparently implied above that I could directly update the page with new info, but I need to be sure. You can already see exactly what the proposed edits are: updating the Singles Releases table, and reinserting the Metal Hammer feature which you took out. Dontreader (talk) 06:43, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * , sorry, I didn't mean to imply you could add new info directly. I meant don't change or ask to change the article unless there is new information.  Metal Hammer does have an article, so in theory it is notable. What exactly do you want to source it with?  Seeing "Heavy Fucking Metal" on the same page as the Harp Twins doesn't seem right.  As Lesser said, put what what you propose in your sandbox.  Ahhhhh Camille.  Bgwhite (talk) 07:34, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Many thanks,, for clarifying the situation. The source for the Metal Hammer article that I have is this:
 * But I could also add the Facebook source merely to show a picture of the feature. I have seen Facebook as a source on other pages but I don't know if that is frowned upon or if it depends on what the Facebook source is being used for. I'm not very comfortable with "Heavy Fucking Metal" either, but the usage of the F word is one of the main commandments in the Heavy Metal faith, and it is our duty to show religious tolerance. I will let you know when my sandbox is ready. And yes, I still can't believe that Camille is so hot... just imagine if she had an identical twin sister! Dontreader (talk) 23:29, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi and . As requested, I made changes to the article in my sandbox. Here is the Musical Career section, where I made some very minor grammatical changes intended to improve the article, and I included the Metal Hammer feature, plus I added that they have over 100,000 YouTube subscribers because I believe that as mere harpists it's a notable enough achievement. I apologize for not having the current version available in my sandbox (I pasted it there but I made changes without remembering to save the current version first). Even so, it's easy enough to see what I did. I also updated the Singles Releases section while taking out a couple of tracks that are not singles, here. Please take a look, and thanks in advance... Dontreader (talk) 07:12, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi and . As requested, I made changes to the article in my sandbox. Here is the Musical Career section, where I made some very minor grammatical changes intended to improve the article, and I included the Metal Hammer feature, plus I added that they have over 100,000 YouTube subscribers because I believe that as mere harpists it's a notable enough achievement. I apologize for not having the current version available in my sandbox (I pasted it there but I made changes without remembering to save the current version first). Even so, it's easy enough to see what I did. I also updated the Singles Releases section while taking out a couple of tracks that are not singles, here. Please take a look, and thanks in advance... Dontreader (talk) 07:12, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Good morning from Corning, Iowa: just west of Quince Avenue and due south of oh-god-I've-been-on-this-train-for-three-days (and it's still better than flying United). To the matter at hand:

1. Don, next time around, here's how to make life easier for a grumpy reviewer. Make a brand new page, say, User:Dontreader/sandbox/Harp Twins (draft). Copy and paste the entire Camille and Kennerly Kitt article there and make your changes. That way, I can go to the article history of the new page and see a "diff" comparing the first version and the most recent version that shows me just the changes you've made. I did this for the Musical Career section and here are the results.

2. Metal Hammer is the kind of citation I expect to see in articles where notability isn't quite established. The article is well past the point now where we need to record every bit of press coverage to make sure it survives AfD.

3. I updated the six most recent singles. Let me know if there were more additions that I missed.

4. Grammar tweaks were helpful. Let me know if I missed any.

5. I don't have any sense as to whether 100,000 youtube subscribers is unusually good, unusually bad, or unremarkable. I'd prefer to see this in a reliable source before adding it.

6. Ok, I've changed my mind about Metal Hammer. It kinda sorta emphasizes the dissertation cite. Better wording may come to me with more coffee and a night spent in a real bed.

7. Looking forward to Harp Twins covers of Demdike Stare. Hey, why don't have a Demdike Stare article yet? Well, let this tide you over until I get it written.

Lesser Cartographies (talk) 13:38, 14 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi Lesser Cartographies. Thank you very much for making the edits so quickly, and while travelling in a train, besides. I should do that next time I go somewhere. I have detested American airports ever since 9/11. Also, trains have nicer views. Enjoy your trip!
 * 1. I'm sorry for the trouble I caused you from not knowing about sandbox subpages. I did apologize for something similar last night but anyway, thank you very much for showing me how to do things better in the future; in fact, I have already created the page you recommended, here.


 * 3. Every single that you added was perfect, but I think there are three tracks that must be deleted, and one ("Amazing Grace") that should be relocated with a different release date, if you have time. My new draft page should make things much easier, I hope.


 * 4. You took care of the grammar tweaks perfectly. Thank you very much for your help and time.


 * 5. All right. That's reasonable enough.


 * 6. Thanks for including the Metal Hammer feature. The problem with Bledsoe's dissertation is that she wrote it before the Twins' cover of Iron Maiden's "Fear of the Dark" was released, which certainly does not perpetuate "the angelic, calm, feminine stereotypes of the instrument." Neither does their cover of the intro theme of The Walking Dead, which is eerie. I'm not comfortable with "Playing up the contrast in styles". I just don't think it conveys anything concrete. I'd rather use "However," and then mention the Metal Hammer feature; they got that interview and feature because of their highly praised version of Fear of the Dark. Also, I don't understand why you omitted the Hot New Band reference. That's a prestigious label that Metal Hammer doesn't give to everyone. It's relevant, notable, and I see no point in making the article shorter than it has to be. Please reconsider.


 * 7. Demdike Stare should work great on harps! You should make that suggestion on their Facebook wall! They do reply to everyone! :)


 * Thanks again Lesser for all your very quick help. Be safe! Dontreader (talk) 20:30, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi again, . Thanks for your continued edits. I don't mean to bother, but if you look very carefully at the sandbox subpage that you suggested for me, you will see that "Auld Lang Syne" was also removed, and "Amazing Grace" was relocated with a different date. Also, the correct title of "Sweet Dreams Are Made of This" is "Sweet Dreams (Are Made of This)". If I were you, I would have erased the list entirely and replaced it with my sandbox list, but it's too late for that. Practically all the work has been done. Please just make those final changes. Thanks again for your patience... Dontreader (talk) 06:46, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Don, take a look now. (Sorry, laptop screen, I didn't scroll down.)  Is it correct now?  Lesser Cartographies (talk) 07:10, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Arbitrary break
1. D'oh! I put my draft version in mainspace instead of my sandbox. I blanked and CSD'd it. Sheesh. Let the record show that Don did as I said and not as I did and put his own draft in his sandbox where it belongs.

3. Tracks deleted per your suggestion at your sandbox page.

6. WARNING: gratuitous personal opinion alert Compare either of those covers to, oh, Deborah Hansen-Conant doing a non-calm, non-angelic blues solo. End gratuitous personal opinion alert. Can you put up some sources for the praise of "Fear of the Dark" (or others) that mention how it shows their style becoming more diverse? Also, I must admit I'm not a regular reader Metal Hammer; I had thought "hot new band" was just a bit of standard music journalism puffery. Do you have a source that mentions that this is something bestowed by the editorial department instead of an individual writer, for example? (Don't worry about reliability at the moment; I just want to understand how you're interpreting these sources. We can worry about getting better sources later if need be.)

7. I just might do that....

Should be pulling into Cleveland at 5:30a. Looking forward to a proper breakfast.

Lesser Cartographies (talk) 06:41, 15 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Here you are now, Lesser Cartographies! I left you a message a few minutes ago at the end of the previous thread. I hope you saw it. Oh, you did. Thanks! Perfect! I was already at point #6 writing stuff. I'll finish soon...

1. Oh well, at least I learned something very useful! Thanks again! Very cool! 3. I addressed this issue above. Fixing tables can be a b*tch! Sorry for the inconvenience, but I do appreciate your patience. I got a headache fixing it last night in the regular sandbox. Not much left to go... 6. That's crazy stuff that you showed me! Never would have guessed it was a harp if I hadn't actually seen it. Certainly not angelic and calm, but the covers I showed you were not angelic either. Anyway, the Twins are not more diverse now than a year and a half ago, but it's not the point I was trying to make. However, I simply don't have reliable sources that indicate extra praise for their cover of Fear of the Dark; it's simply how they got featured in the magazine. Here's praise for it (nearly 100,000 shares on a Facebook page, as an unusable example), here. Regarding the Hot New Band label, it's completely editorial. Let me retrieve the picture of the feature, so you can see the label, here. No author is named, as you can see. There were four bands in that edition that were called Hot New Bands, always with that star and ribbon. I have the magazine, which is how I know. I hope that helps. 7. Good! But they are travelling now, like you, so ask them in a week or so when they get back home! Many thanks again... Dontreader (talk) 07:29, 15 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi . I hope you were able to read my latest observations. I'm certainly very grateful for all your help, but I remain uncomfortable with "Playing up the contrast in styles", which doesn't seem to contribute anything concrete to the article, in my opinion, and as far as I can tell, it's not the sort of thing one finds in Featured Articles (you have said that Featured Article standards should be applied to the Kitt article). I'd rather see this: The June 2013 issue of Metal Hammer featured an interview article about the Harp Twins, titled "Harp Attack!", and labeled them a "Hot New Band". At least the Hot New Band label should be added in some way or another. You asked me for information on the matter, and I have given it to you. That was clearly an editorial decision. There is absolutely no way that anyone could argue that this information is fancruft. If you happen to be in a coma, I'll give you one more day to reply. Thanks again. Dontreader (talk) 03:24, 19 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Don, I had read your response when you wrote it and didn't think you were asking for a reply. "Hot new band" doesn't signify any particular achievement in this context.  And the article did indeed play up the difference in styles between what Metal Hammer regularly reviews and what the twins do.  Lesser Cartographies (talk) 08:20, 19 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Lesser, you are frustrating me yet again. First of all, how can you say that you didn't think I was asking for a reply? You wrote, "Do you have a source that mentions that this is something bestowed by the editorial department instead of an individual writer, for example? (Don't worry about reliability at the moment; I just want to understand how you're interpreting these sources. We can worry about getting better sources later if need be.)" That was a question, and I answered it, and I added, "I hope that helps." So, of course I was asking for a reply. Besides, I had told you that I was uncomfortable with "Playing up the contrast in styles". Look, "Playing up the contrast in styles" lacks clarity. It's a mediocre edit, at best. Please don't be stubborn. If you were expecting that the "Hot New Band" label was an individual writer's choice instead of an editorial department decision, then that's not my problem. I proved that it was an editorial decision. Your reply makes no sense whatsoever. The fact that Metal Hammer named them as a Hot New Band should be included, and your edit that says "Playing up the contrast in styles" should be removed., please, what do you suggest? I'm fine with calling other editors to settle this matter if you are. Thanks for your patience. Dontreader (talk) 07:23, 20 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Don, if you head over to the wikia project you can create an entire wiki devoted to the Harp Twins where you have complete editorial control. If someone disagrees with an edit you make, you can ban them.  Here, though, you're going to have to wrap your head around the fact that the article is written collaboratively, rather than at your direction, and that means you're not going to get you way much of the time.  If you'd like to discuss this issue with a wider group of editors, I'll ping Duff and whoever else has contributed to the article and we can hash this out on the article talk page.  As to not replying:  I asked you a question and you answered it.  Based on your answer, I thought it was obvious to both of us why I wasn't going to make the edit you had requested.  I'm apologize for the miscommunicataion.  Lesser Cartographies (talk) 13:21, 20 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Lesser, you are the one acting like you have complete and arbitrary editorial control over the article. And stop being a hypocrite. Duff is the one who is controlling YOU. I hate the Wikipedia email service except for administrators, maybe, but everything else should be public, including your communications with Duff. What you are saying here makes no sense whatsoever. This situation is exactly the same as your defense of your Madonna Collector source; I told you to admit you were wrong, but you refused, and eventually IndianBio created a humiliating situation for you, after you embarrassed yourself at the Teahouse, where you are ironically a host. Let me try again to help you understand the situation, using very simple English:
 * I wanted "Hot New Band" to be included.
 * You replied, saying "Do you have a source that mentions that this is something bestowed by the editorial department instead of an individual writer, for example? (Don't worry about reliability at the moment; I just want to understand how you're interpreting these sources. We can worry about getting better sources later if need be.)"
 * I gave you a source that PROVES that this is something bestowed by the editorial department instead of an individual writer.
 * However, you REFUSE to include it, resorting to the most nonsensical sentences that I've seen ever since the infamous Madonna Collector source defense.


 * By the way, I also wanted the 100,000 YouTube subscribers mentioned. You said no. I accepted that. But now it's time for you to get back in touch with reality. Dontreader (talk) 20:01, 20 April 2014 (UTC)


 * P.S. Lesser, I find it particularly insulting that you proposed that Duff and the other contributors to the article should work it out on the article talk page. First of all, that would be a violation of 's rule; secondly, show me ONE sentence that Duff (who fought vigorously for the deletion of the article) has contributed to the Kitt page; thirdly, Duff's behavior made the other main contributor decide to leave Wikipedia permanently. So, what the hell were you thinking? If you had any dignity, you would step down immediately from this mediation process. Dontreader (talk) 20:37, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Don: Someday it's going to occur to you that berating people isn't an effective way to get them to come around to your way of thinking. But probably not today.... Lesser Cartographies (talk) 23:23, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Lesser, I was being nice to you until you went crazy. And since you often claim to know how to be an effective editor, I have news for you: you are not one of them. Your general style is very insulting, usually in subtle ways. You think you are smarter than everyone else, that you can outsmart everyone to achieve your editing goals. You are unable to admit that you make mistakes, and that trait will only bring suffering to your life. The techniques that you systematically use, such as distraction, deception and obfuscation, work well with simpletons, but they are disastrous when used while dealing with people that have lots of experience with those tricks. I deeply resent that I have had to spend valuable time recently here merely because of your insufferable style. When I politely pointed out that I was not comfortable with "Playing up the contrast in styles", and that "Hot New Band" should be included, you really should have reacted differently. But you went crazy. Besides, you knew very well that I did not want you to show up again as a mediator, but you came back anyway, so you have only yourself to blame for the consequences. Dontreader (talk) 06:18, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Retiring from Harp Twins mediation duty
Don, Duff, the article is open for editing. I've taken it off of my watchlist. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 07:34, 21 April 2014 (UTC)


 * , Lesser has left, but he has no right to say that the article is now open for editing. That is not his decision to make. You established the rules when you issued a Final Warning to both Duff and me. What Lesser wrote is further proof that he was acting in bad faith. He just wants me to get into trouble with Duff again on the article, and hope that I'll get banned from Wikipedia. I promise to respect any other experienced Wikipedian as the mediator even if I disagree with his/her decisions. I slammed Lesser because he insulted me in different ways many times, he made many mistakes which he refused to admit, and he is outrageously insolent. Also, in my opinion, a mediator should not write privately to either Duff or myself. I think it's better if every single communication takes place on talk pages. This whole situation is crazy but it's not my fault. I should be allowed, I believe, to freely edit that article, but Duff exists, and he vigorously campaigned for the deletion of the article, and then he came back half a year later to cause more trouble, and so I can't edit the article which I was a regular contributor to. I totally lose with this situation because I care about that article, whereas Duff can easily decide to cause trouble elsewhere and leave that article alone, but I have accepted your decision and I respect it. You have your reasons. However, Duff has said that he does not accept your decision. If you could ban him from editing just that article then that would fix everything, but you know the rules much better than I do. A couple of things must be addressed (please read above), but other than that I don't foresee the need for further edits, at least not for a long time. I'm sorry for all the crap you've been through with this nightmare. Your time is valuable, my time is valuable, and I have become ill many times due to this situation. I am confident that it will be smooth with Lesser out of the way, if Duff can be controlled. Dontreader (talk) 04:51, 22 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I told Lesser to wash his hands and walk away. It was going nowhere.  Lesser volunteered and it isn't worth being berated.   You have to remember that you have the Twins best interest in mind, but that is not how it works.  Lesser had the articles interest in mind in relation to Wikipedia rules.  Those two interests did conflict.  Unfortunately, you are left with me.   I really think you should walk away from the article for a bit.  Work on some other articles and then come back.  However, I'm here for you to make any changes.  Bgwhite (talk) 05:27, 22 April 2014 (UTC)


 * , thanks for your reply. I just finished having a lovely time at ANI (not). Anyway, look, probably I misunderstood Lesser in the beginning. It's very likely that I treated him unfairly early on, plus little details here and there made me feel that I could not trust him. For example, when proposals with votes were being made on the article's talk page, there was an experienced editor who gave his opinions, but his opinions were clearly ignored because some of them were not what Duff and Lesser wanted. That editor should have been contacted to reach a broader consensus since he was obviously willing to participate. Likewise, the creator of the page provided input, which Lesser rudely ignored as well. The least that Lesser could have done was to ask the creator of the page to defend her opinions based on the rules.
 * Then after my relationship with Lesser deteriorated significantly, I do think he made many more mistakes of very significant importance. Yes, the Wikipedia rules are there and must be followed, but they are subjective in many cases, as you know. That's why when an article is nominated for deletion (for example), you can see serious disagreements between seasoned contributors. Same thing on talk pages, etc. In my opinion, Lesser began to use the subjective nature of some rules to anger me since he was already upset with me, and to make Duff happy. When I've come to you with suggestions for the article, I'd say you've rejected more than half of them, but at least you give me good reasons. For example, you eliminated their total YouTube views, claiming that cat videos are much more popular. So how can I argue against that? I can't. And when I complained to you about the article being held to Featured Article standards, you explained very politely that every article that is created should have those standards. That's reasonable enough. We want high standards on Wikipedia for every article. You always have clear and logical explanations, and you treat me as if you felt that I was equal to you. That wasn't happening with Lesser at all. And his last mistake was a very big one because the rules don't really say that including "Hot New Band" is acceptable or not, but Lesser totally cornered himself when he told me to provide a source that showed that "Hot New Band" was an editorial department decision instead of a particular writer's decision. So I showed him proof that it was an editorial decision, and then what did he do? He did not reply. When I came back asking for action to be taken, he should have said that he was busy, but instead he dug a hole for himself by admitting that he had seen my comment but saw no need to reply to it. It's as if he really was desperate not to upset Duff, who calls everything fancruft. So yeah, I got upset again.
 * Anyway, could you please at least take out the "Playing up the contrast in styles"? That is just not clear, and rather awkward, in my opinion. And then right after that, instead of "group" please write "duo". And please keep the article on your watchlist because sometimes I receive notifications of changes but sometimes I don't. Vandalism is always a concern. I will focus on other articles for a few months, and heck, I might even write my own article about blue miniature unicorns. Thanks again for your time. Dontreader (talk) 23:53, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Something fun
In case you're a LaTeX/UTF8 gearhead: Latex to UTF-8 best practice?. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 03:32, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank goodness no. That thing can be evil if you don't use it all the time. As close as I got to it was occasionally using LyX. Bgwhite (talk) 05:13, 24 April 2014 (UTC)