User talk:Bgwhite

Listas

Actually, ha-ha-ha (queuing the same frightening, sinister music), it was not so much by mistake as it was by choice. I know that the rest of the banners would inherit the listas of the first one, but since people delete, add, and move around the banners all the time, it often results in a good number of screw-ups which later need to be cleaned up, again and again (OK, maybe not so much in the bio articles, where WPBIO comes first, but still). Specifying listas in all the banners prevents this problem from ever occurring, which I've always presumed to be a good thing, no? Does my "overlistassing" create any problems I am not aware of? Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); March 10, 2011; 20:53 (UTC)

Well, I normally copy-paste them, which ensures that I don't screw them up, so typing-wise it doesn't really matter to me. Thanks for being vigilant though! Not many people these days would bother to point out something minor like that. See you on the pages I assess :) Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); March 10, 2011; 21:14 (UTC)

Nah, yours is not a mistake either, it's just a different approach. I don't mind either way.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); March 10, 2011; 22:11 (UTC)

Iorio

Hi. There are couple of answers here. ;) --Lucas (talk) 14:45, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

All right. I'll write you a line when the procedure is finished. In the meantime I noticed that the article has been already deleted here too. Bye, see u soon. --Lucas (talk) 07:53, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Hello. The page has been deleted (percentage 82.76%). If you need some translation of comments, put me a line. Have a good day. --Lucas (talk) 00:12, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

The Ministry of Education is the institution witch manage the whole italian education system (included university): we do not have private universities. Every professor, researcher (many thousands)... in Italy, is financed by this institution through the respective local school (high school, university, and so on). For eg: some of them recive more than 5500 euros after-tax per month (plus extras for research projects), but he could be not relevant anyway in his works (researchin, teaching, peer reviewed things, and so on: none of our universities is listed in the 100 better university in the world). This is not anyway the case of Iorio: he is too young to recive this kind of funding, in italy we have the oldest professor in Europe. I'm telling you this things, just to let you understand our system. On it.wiki, many users and sysops cheched the number of relevant pubblications, important reasearch projects, and all the other infos. The article was written in a VERY smart form (and the same is about the english one, I see). For eg, this is a phrase from the italian article, "Iorio is an elected member of the Royal Astronomical Society", the truth is: he is a "RAS FELLOWS MEMBERS", you could be Fellows Member just by submitting a form (even without having a degree). I'm trying to explain the users researches the best i can, but it's not so easy for me to speak this kind of technichal english. Thanks for understanding. ;) For other questions, I'm here. --Lucas (talk) 23:33, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Impressive work and great reserach, nothing else to say, i think. --Lucas (talk) 00:09, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Attacked for following rules

That is how I feel. One of the clear cases of notability is if someone is the holder of a named chair. So I note at the begining of an article on a BYU professor what named chair the guy has, and people are still impressed. Still, the one that galls me the most is the editor-in-cheif rule. Being an editor-in-cheif of a major scholarly publication makes someone notable. Thus From the beginning the article on Marie Cornwall has noted that she is editor-in-cheif of the Journal of the Sociology of Religion. No one has ever questioned that this is the case. Yet when I mention this article, I still get people telling me it is weak. True, it could use more work, but to say it is in anyway marginally notable is just wrong. I know you are not responsible for most of these issues, but whenever I bring them up with the administrator who started the crusade (I can think of no other term to describe his unremitting attacks) against my editing, he just comes back with more cutting and denigrating remarks and I am even more worked up. His dismissiveness twoards the bios of Sue Rocca, Sal Rocca, Tory Rocca and Doug Carl is just one example. Ture, these biographies could use more sources. However it is clearly stated that members of state legislatures are notable. The complaint about turning out too many articles ignores the fact that currently there is an unjustified prepondenence of articles on Democrat members of state legislatures (which Sal Rocca once was in fact) and that when I brought up this issue in a discussion the response was I should seek to rectify it by creating more articles on Republican State legislators. I would much rather create articles on scholars and Church leaders than legislators though. I have sought to find more information on James Arrington, but I am still not very convinced the article is good. I just do not have the patience to read all the way through articles on his "Farley Family Reuion", nor am I very skilled at sumarizing creative works. It might help if someone else were to do this. At times it seems all that ever happens is that people criticize my contributions. It is quite frustrating, especially when they do so in broad terms, and refuse to admit anything good.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:49, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

There are a couple of things going on here, with the biggest out of your control.

New articles are scrutinized way more than regular articles and alot more so as the years have gone by. If you create new articles, you have to expect people questioning if they belong. So, don't take it personal (rude behavior however should never be tolerated).

I'm not sure why the Rocca articles were questioned, maybe the rules were different a few years ago. In articles about sportpersons and politicians, the rules are now cut and dried. The entire article can be two sentences and you can immediately know they are notable. (Key words of State Senator, Member of Parliament or Governor) You deal in articles with alot more grey. How do you tell if a professor or journalist are notable? There are no specific rules. 1/2 of articles on professors I can tell if notable or not, but I haven't a clue on the other half without doing some digging. So, it's going to take alot more than just a couple of sentences. James Arrington is a perfect example. From the article, he is not notable. But, if you add something about all the plays he has written, then he becomes notable. For Seventy articles, maybe for now only add Seventies that have a source other than just the Church. I couldn't find anything in English about Yamashita, so maybe not add him for now.

In Aquabanianskakid's case, I think he/she has handled things just fine. If I came across the articles he/she did and I didn't know about the Seventies, I would question things too. In fact, I they have done a great service... the articles will improve.

I'll spruce up Arrington's article tonight. I'm not an expert, but how about when you create a new article, you create it in your sandbox. I can then take a look and offer some suggestions. Hopefully with two sets of eyes on an article, it will stave off all the deletion requests. Bgwhite (talk) 23:33, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Thankyou for the thoughts. I may actually follow your advice on a sandbox creation, or I may just give up on creating an article on chemist Adam T. Woolley. His work in chemistry may or may not have yet reached notability. I am not yet sure.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:20, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Wikify Template tagged on Tomomi Nishimoto

Hi there. I've added several links to the article of Tomomi Nishimoto and would like to know if it's OK to delete the "Wikify" template now. If not, can you give me suggestions on what else I need to do? Thanks. RUGGER (talk) 05:41, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Article looks great. Go ahead and remove the template. Couple of suggestions... Make the dates consistent in the references. There is a combination of writing it out (24 April 1980) and numbers (1980-04-24). Your pick on what format to go for. Second, the references don't have a "publisher" parameter. Third, there is a couple bad links on the references. Otherwise, I wish 99% of editors would do an article as nicely as Nishimoto's. I hope you do many more. Give me a yell anytime you need any help. Bgwhite (talk) 05:56, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I'll move ahead and remove the template and see what I can do with the things you've pointed out. Thanks again. RUGGER (talk) 04:22, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Line of succession to the throne of Baden

Excellent solution. I went ahead and did the dirty work. I added the "blue linked" Hereditary Prince. The other heirs seem to be his brothers and his sons, followed by perhaps an uncle and a cousin. Add more if you think they're justified, etc. There may be other lists like this which would benefit from similar merging.   Will Beback  talk  08:08, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Living parameter

Hey, thanks for following me around and batting clean-up on the many articles I've created--the "living person" parameter is an important one! I'm not always sure how to handle it. Your help is greatly, greatly appreciated!

Therefore...

		The College football Barnstar
		For cleaning up behind me and paying closer attention to detail than I do, specifically with the "living person" parameters for head coach articles, I gratefully award you this Barnstar!Paul McDonald (talk) 20:55, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Invitation to take part in a pilot study

I am a Wikipedian, who is studying the phenomenon on Wikipedia. I need your help to conduct my research on about understanding "Motivation of Wikipedia contributors." I would like to invite you to a short survey. Please give me your valuable time, which estimates only 5 minutes’’’. cooldenny (talk) 17:43, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Re: Lyon Gardiner Tyler Jr.

Closest I found was his appearance on "I've Got a Secret" Nov 1958; I think this is IAR, but someone with access to the references I listed may find something that passes GNG other than just the sum of coverage. Dru of Id (talk) 02:26, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, oddly, 'how does history's portrayal of your grandfather compare with what your family told you?', while likely common to him, seems like it might be interesting; not sure other presidential grandchildren would be as interesting, and the telescoping time view would make for an odd inclusion criteria, but can't even claim 'presidential grandchild born furthest from president's YOB' due to younger siblings. Dru of Id (talk) 07:59, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

U Gambira sort

Minor question, but I'm hoping to write some more Burmese articles soon and wanted to clarify, since it may be a running issue. On U Gambira, you changed the defaultsort from Gambira, U, to U Gambira and referred to WP:NAMESORT. Since U is an honorific in Burmese, I wasn't sure what do with it myself, but the examples at U Nu and U Thant suggest that "Gambira, U" would be the standard sort; my understanding is that looking for these men under U in the category list would be comparable to looking under "Mr" or "Sir." Would it be okay for me to change it back? Any guidance you can give me on how foreign names should be cat-sorted is appreciated. Thanks for the help! -- Khazar (talk) 14:06, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

You are correct. It is an honorific, so it should be sorted as Gambira, U. I wasn't aware of the U being an honorific, so I sorted as if it was a normal Burmese name. There are so many different honorifics and ways to sort, that it make is next to impossible not to screw up. Best guidance I have is to look up the naming convention for a particular area. Examples are Burmese name and Vietnamese name. But, even that doesn't give all the information on how to sort a particular name, so use your best judgement as the last resort. Bgwhite (talk) 16:53, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the swift double-check as well as the guidance! -- Khazar (talk) 16:59, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

H. L. Carnahan

Could you please drop by Talk:H. L. Carnahan#Date of death and clarify this edit? You cite a source dated April 1 for Carnahan's death on May 31, two months afterward. I'm assuming "May" was a typo for "Mar.", but if you have access to the article in question, it would be nice to nail this down. Thanks. TJRC (talk) 22:40, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Boy, that was awhile ago. It's worse than a typo, because I don't abbreviate months. I must have had a brain freeze (what little amount of brain I have left) and typed May instead of March. He did die on March 31 and not March 13... another idiot like me probably switched the numbers. Bgwhite (talk) 06:52, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. TJRC (talk) 17:29, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

It is not my fault

That my signature has changed. And i suggest that the articles be improved by you if you think they don't deserve . That is why i calim my user name. I's my a free world. PS don't reply on my talk page.Other dictionaries are better (talk) 22:43, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Zack Heart & Outback Zack Pages

Dear Bgwhite, 2 questions, can you please instruct us on how to get off the Orphan list? We cant understand why the warning has come up for the page. Also, we would like Outback Zack page to have a page to itself as its a fictional character like Tarzan or Mowgli. How do we go about having a separate page for him? Thank you Regards, Outback Zack Productions (Krystic1 (talk) 02:24, 6 May 2011 (UTC))