Who are you to say what is consensus or not on the matter of Francis, Dauphin of France? Leave Serge alone. If he has avoided the letter of 3RR, then there is technically no wrongdoing. Leave him alone, that's an order. Or we can take this up with the chain of command. 68.236.154.4 ( talk) 21:54, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Okay JHunterJ, let's do it your way. I'll locate an administrator and lodge a complaint over you. It is NOT your place to say what consensus is and is not, or interpreting the 3RR policy. Let's take this case up for judgment. 68.236.154.4 ( talk) 16:41, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Would you have styled this redirect as a third primary meaning to Acid (disambiguation) or is it better off as an entry? Note that in this thread I have referenced a number of dabs with more than one primary topic. Lord Sesshomaru ( talk • edits) 20:29, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Can you please undelete Wal-Mart (disambiguation), a page I recently created. For some reason I cannot understand, it was speedy deleted. I would have objected to this deletion, but was not even around when this happened. I see nothing wrong with this page. Tatterfly ( talk) 20:02, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm writing to strongly object to the reversion of the decision to redirect "fashion house" to haute couture. In itself, the term "fashion house" is not exclusively haute couture - you can have "ready to wear fashion houses", such as Chloé. I was going to write an article clarifying the use of the term "fashion house" and explaining how it is distinct from haute couture, and the different things it can mean. Please can you see the discussion about this on the Haute Couture chat page and also make a note of where I've said on my talk page that I was going to write a Wiki for the term "fashion house". It's extremely misleading to associate fashion houses solely with haute couture, as virtually any clothing label with name-brand recognition or commercial success can be described as a fashion house. It is a semantics thing, but a rather major semantics thing to anyone involved in fashion. Thanks so much for considering this, and if there is somewhere else I need to go to argue for the unlinking of fashion house to haute couture, please let me know. Mabalu ( talk) 23:29, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Hey there, just looking for another "expert" opinion ... Melange was moved to Melange (fictional drug) but the disambiguation seems unnecessary, as the alternate articles noted at Melange (disambiguation) are stubs and seemingly less-notable. And Melange remains a redirect to Melange (fictional drug). Hmmm. — TAnthony Talk 14:55, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Hello there. I've been looking for someone who can help me with a conflict of sources about the number of kills Archer achieved during World War II. I've done everything I can think of to find a source other than the TV series Dogfights to support the claim that he indeed has five kills, but to no avail. If you could assist me, either in finding a source, helping me enter said data, or directing me to someone you believe is better equipped to handle this perticular problem, I'd very much appreciate it. Best regards, Magus732 ( talk) 05:52, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
I noticed your cleanup on Red Clay (disambiguation). I had been engaged in an extended debate on the Talk page, in case you hadn't noticed, and found myself rather frustrated in pursuit of any sensible outcome for that page. Your edit will hopefully prove an effective solution , yet I find myself wondering what to do in the future if such an option is not availabe. Do you have any suggestions, or critiques, on approach in such a case? ENeville ( talk) 18:36, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
First, I want to apologize for using the "UNDO" button on your edit. My intent was to revert with an explanation -- not to automatically undo it, & I confused that with the rollback function. I rarely use either, & probably will use them even less after this.
Now to the point of your message. My belief is that redlinks are not, in themselves or on disambiguation pages, a bad thing: they encourage the creation of new pages, & thus help improve Wikipedia. However, in your post you did not respond or anticipate this. You wrote nothing about how redlinks harm Wikipedia, nor how their removal improves them. What you wrote was simply a recital of various statements in various policy statements -- which is not the same thing. You've been an editor at Wikipedia long enough to know that the words, & thus the intent, of any given policy can radically change with a few edits, so pointing to them without any explanation why you think the policy helps Wikipedia is not helpful. If policy contradicts writing a useful reference work, then the policy is wrong. Please consider my point here. At best, a disagreement over redlinks -- like this one -- becomes an edit war over content; at worst, it is an example of mechanistic application of policy that seems to affect Wikipedia more & more in recent months. -- llywrch ( talk) 06:14, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
This was a bit of a hard one. I really had no idea how to format this. Thoughts? Lord Sesshomaru ( talk • edits) 18:11, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for that redirect template, I didn't know one with that wording was available. Hewinsj ( talk) 14:14, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Per a conversation I had with another editor on User talk:Collectonian#Dragon Ball (film), can you undelete this dab & replace the old information with the new one from the appointed discussion? Hope this isn't too much work. Please let me know if you do not understand my request. Lord Sesshomaru ( talk • edits) 04:54, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
If you have occasion to edit there again, i think you did a good job re the PoV problem, and in any case i think i don't want to get involved. But PoV aside and as a matter of distinguishing it from, e.g. the other advocacy group, if not the commercial firm, i commend for your consideration the view that some users seeking ADL will know at least of the org's connections to matters Jewish, but may find "Anti-Defamation" unhelpfully cryptic. There was a time when it was always called the "B'nai Brith Anti-Defamation League", so i assume it is accurate to describe it as "Jewish-initiated organization". Or -- suggested by
AFSC, which (at least not too long ago) described itself as "Quaker led" tho my impression was that "Quaker affiliated" (what our article says) was too strong for them, at least then) -- perhaps even "Jewish-led organization" (tho in the case of describing ADL that way, i'm guessing and would definitely seek reliable verification first).
--
Jerzy•
t
04:09, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disambiguation#lists of lists. I see a problem with removing the {{ disambig}} template from many of these lists. DHowell ( talk) 04:24, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Someone moved it to Terminology (discipline). I was not able to revert so can you rectify this? Oh, and Term will need a "disambig style cleanup". Lord Sesshomaru ( talk • edits) 20:07, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Can you take a look at Talk:The New Adventures of Superman (TV series)#Suggestion: eliminate (TV series) from article title? Thanks. — TAnthony Talk 23:36, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi, J--long time... I just cleaned up Yellow (disambiguation) and scraped away a lot of bad entries. I'd appreciate it if you'd take a quick look--at the current version and the older one--and make any changes you see fit. I was on the fence about including Yellow Pages, and didn't, for example. Thanks! -- ShelfSkewed Talk 16:37, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi, Paul Schulze was recently and inexplicably moved to Paul Schulze (actor), to make way for a disambig page; since the only other "article" didn't even exist, I moved the unnecessary disambig to Paul Schulze (disambiguation) hoping I could then restore the other article, but of course now moving Paul Schulze (actor) to Paul Schulze is an assisted move. Can you clean up the mess? Thanks! — TAnthony Talk 04:40, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Something's still not right with me here. Think you can perform one of those cleanups? Lord Sesshomaru ( talk • edits) 23:46, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Hey J, do you think you can rework that ugly pipe link in the publishing section? I was the one who set it up like that because I can't come up with something more suitable. Lord Sesshomaru ( talk • edits) 01:30, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi. I thought long and hard about the disambiguation, why have [you] done this and this? cygnis insignis 13:51, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Who are you to say what is consensus or not on the matter of Francis, Dauphin of France? Leave Serge alone. If he has avoided the letter of 3RR, then there is technically no wrongdoing. Leave him alone, that's an order. Or we can take this up with the chain of command. 68.236.154.4 ( talk) 21:54, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Okay JHunterJ, let's do it your way. I'll locate an administrator and lodge a complaint over you. It is NOT your place to say what consensus is and is not, or interpreting the 3RR policy. Let's take this case up for judgment. 68.236.154.4 ( talk) 16:41, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Would you have styled this redirect as a third primary meaning to Acid (disambiguation) or is it better off as an entry? Note that in this thread I have referenced a number of dabs with more than one primary topic. Lord Sesshomaru ( talk • edits) 20:29, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Can you please undelete Wal-Mart (disambiguation), a page I recently created. For some reason I cannot understand, it was speedy deleted. I would have objected to this deletion, but was not even around when this happened. I see nothing wrong with this page. Tatterfly ( talk) 20:02, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm writing to strongly object to the reversion of the decision to redirect "fashion house" to haute couture. In itself, the term "fashion house" is not exclusively haute couture - you can have "ready to wear fashion houses", such as Chloé. I was going to write an article clarifying the use of the term "fashion house" and explaining how it is distinct from haute couture, and the different things it can mean. Please can you see the discussion about this on the Haute Couture chat page and also make a note of where I've said on my talk page that I was going to write a Wiki for the term "fashion house". It's extremely misleading to associate fashion houses solely with haute couture, as virtually any clothing label with name-brand recognition or commercial success can be described as a fashion house. It is a semantics thing, but a rather major semantics thing to anyone involved in fashion. Thanks so much for considering this, and if there is somewhere else I need to go to argue for the unlinking of fashion house to haute couture, please let me know. Mabalu ( talk) 23:29, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Hey there, just looking for another "expert" opinion ... Melange was moved to Melange (fictional drug) but the disambiguation seems unnecessary, as the alternate articles noted at Melange (disambiguation) are stubs and seemingly less-notable. And Melange remains a redirect to Melange (fictional drug). Hmmm. — TAnthony Talk 14:55, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Hello there. I've been looking for someone who can help me with a conflict of sources about the number of kills Archer achieved during World War II. I've done everything I can think of to find a source other than the TV series Dogfights to support the claim that he indeed has five kills, but to no avail. If you could assist me, either in finding a source, helping me enter said data, or directing me to someone you believe is better equipped to handle this perticular problem, I'd very much appreciate it. Best regards, Magus732 ( talk) 05:52, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
I noticed your cleanup on Red Clay (disambiguation). I had been engaged in an extended debate on the Talk page, in case you hadn't noticed, and found myself rather frustrated in pursuit of any sensible outcome for that page. Your edit will hopefully prove an effective solution , yet I find myself wondering what to do in the future if such an option is not availabe. Do you have any suggestions, or critiques, on approach in such a case? ENeville ( talk) 18:36, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
First, I want to apologize for using the "UNDO" button on your edit. My intent was to revert with an explanation -- not to automatically undo it, & I confused that with the rollback function. I rarely use either, & probably will use them even less after this.
Now to the point of your message. My belief is that redlinks are not, in themselves or on disambiguation pages, a bad thing: they encourage the creation of new pages, & thus help improve Wikipedia. However, in your post you did not respond or anticipate this. You wrote nothing about how redlinks harm Wikipedia, nor how their removal improves them. What you wrote was simply a recital of various statements in various policy statements -- which is not the same thing. You've been an editor at Wikipedia long enough to know that the words, & thus the intent, of any given policy can radically change with a few edits, so pointing to them without any explanation why you think the policy helps Wikipedia is not helpful. If policy contradicts writing a useful reference work, then the policy is wrong. Please consider my point here. At best, a disagreement over redlinks -- like this one -- becomes an edit war over content; at worst, it is an example of mechanistic application of policy that seems to affect Wikipedia more & more in recent months. -- llywrch ( talk) 06:14, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
This was a bit of a hard one. I really had no idea how to format this. Thoughts? Lord Sesshomaru ( talk • edits) 18:11, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for that redirect template, I didn't know one with that wording was available. Hewinsj ( talk) 14:14, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Per a conversation I had with another editor on User talk:Collectonian#Dragon Ball (film), can you undelete this dab & replace the old information with the new one from the appointed discussion? Hope this isn't too much work. Please let me know if you do not understand my request. Lord Sesshomaru ( talk • edits) 04:54, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
If you have occasion to edit there again, i think you did a good job re the PoV problem, and in any case i think i don't want to get involved. But PoV aside and as a matter of distinguishing it from, e.g. the other advocacy group, if not the commercial firm, i commend for your consideration the view that some users seeking ADL will know at least of the org's connections to matters Jewish, but may find "Anti-Defamation" unhelpfully cryptic. There was a time when it was always called the "B'nai Brith Anti-Defamation League", so i assume it is accurate to describe it as "Jewish-initiated organization". Or -- suggested by
AFSC, which (at least not too long ago) described itself as "Quaker led" tho my impression was that "Quaker affiliated" (what our article says) was too strong for them, at least then) -- perhaps even "Jewish-led organization" (tho in the case of describing ADL that way, i'm guessing and would definitely seek reliable verification first).
--
Jerzy•
t
04:09, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disambiguation#lists of lists. I see a problem with removing the {{ disambig}} template from many of these lists. DHowell ( talk) 04:24, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Someone moved it to Terminology (discipline). I was not able to revert so can you rectify this? Oh, and Term will need a "disambig style cleanup". Lord Sesshomaru ( talk • edits) 20:07, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Can you take a look at Talk:The New Adventures of Superman (TV series)#Suggestion: eliminate (TV series) from article title? Thanks. — TAnthony Talk 23:36, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi, J--long time... I just cleaned up Yellow (disambiguation) and scraped away a lot of bad entries. I'd appreciate it if you'd take a quick look--at the current version and the older one--and make any changes you see fit. I was on the fence about including Yellow Pages, and didn't, for example. Thanks! -- ShelfSkewed Talk 16:37, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi, Paul Schulze was recently and inexplicably moved to Paul Schulze (actor), to make way for a disambig page; since the only other "article" didn't even exist, I moved the unnecessary disambig to Paul Schulze (disambiguation) hoping I could then restore the other article, but of course now moving Paul Schulze (actor) to Paul Schulze is an assisted move. Can you clean up the mess? Thanks! — TAnthony Talk 04:40, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Something's still not right with me here. Think you can perform one of those cleanups? Lord Sesshomaru ( talk • edits) 23:46, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Hey J, do you think you can rework that ugly pipe link in the publishing section? I was the one who set it up like that because I can't come up with something more suitable. Lord Sesshomaru ( talk • edits) 01:30, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi. I thought long and hard about the disambiguation, why have [you] done this and this? cygnis insignis 13:51, 30 March 2009 (UTC)