| This is Bkonrad's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments. |
|
| Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119 |
|
Vasily Zavoyko: If you found it unnecessary to insert a disamb. page, - fine, - but please be more careful not to delete other good changes. This is a note to you. Thank you! Cotling ( talk) 14:47, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
Please stop deleting relevant content without valid reason. I'm referring to specifically to the Medina_(disambiguation) page.
You reverted my changes, and I improved the content, but you reverted again. In both cases without stating a valid reason. People searching for this music is likely to end up on this page. Not only is Medina part of the title and the name of the band, but the chorus repeats "Medina" over and over again.
Please stop reverting relentlessly, or at least explain why you think it doesn't belong. Thank you in advance. 149.88.17.134 ( talk) 19:10, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
I agree. Rogue editor on an ego trip. Wikipedia is diminished by this sort of person holding so much power on the site. Please begin editing in a way that reflects awareness of Wikipedia users' being a higher priority than your ego. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by SteGenevieve ( talk • contribs) 04:30, April 27, 2024 (UTC)
- Sorry, but no,
your edit was not an improvement. Please review
WP:MOSDAB; in particular,
WP:DABONE and
WP:DABMENTION and
MOS:DABNOENTRY.
older ≠
wiser 19:30, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
- Bro please stop this. You deleted A.FLOCK's edit man. He made it better. I tried to find beluga youtuber, he put that, then you Deleted it? Why? Now I can't find it. Awesome for your revert which made me look for more time to find what I was looking for. Thx. 103.172.217.171 ( talk) 07:48, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
The standard title for a given name article is Name (given name) since the word itself can refer to a number of other things besides the name. I moved these pages to titles that reflect the titles of multiple other given name articles. i have major objections to your reverting them. These are seemingly uncontroversial moves based on previously established precedent. Bookworm857158367 ( talk) 15:35, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
- No, these articles follow standard naming conventions in that a parenthetical phrase is not automatically appended. In cases where the name is the primary topic, there is no need for the parenthetical disambiguating phrase.
older ≠
wiser 15:43, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
- This is unduly confusing considering the number of other things that might have the name or might have the name in the future such as a single-named performer or an organization or painting, etc. The standard title
Name (given name) clarifies that the topic is tge history and usage of tge name. These are not disambiguation articles. They are properly articles regarding usage of tge name.
Bookworm857158367 (
talk) 15:50, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
- Preemptive disambiguation has been proposed many times and soundly rejected with few exceptions. There is none for Wikipedia:WikiProject Anthroponymy articles. older ≠ wiser 15:59, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
- (
talk page watcher) @
Bookworm857158367 If you think that either name is not the Primary Topic ( which could well be argued, with places, ships, etc), you could propose, for each, a not-uncontroversial multiple move of the disambiguation page to the basename and the given name page to the disambiguation name, as set out at
WP:Requested moves. There would then be wider discussion. There might be a lot of incoming links to clear up, I haven't checked.
Pam
D 16:53, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
- I’d argue that the name pages aren’t actually disambiguation names but are properly articles about the meaning, history and usage of the name itself. They have significance in and of themselves. They aren’t intended to be place holders referring people to other articles.
Bookworm857158367 (
talk) 16:59, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
- I think you misunderstood what PamD was suggesting. If you think the name articles are not the primary topic, you should propose a requested move of both the name article and the disambiguation page. For example, to move Cedric to Cedric (given name) and Cedric (disambiguation) to Cedric. older ≠ wiser 18:39, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
- I’d argue that the name pages aren’t actually disambiguation names but are properly articles about the meaning, history and usage of the name itself. They have significance in and of themselves. They aren’t intended to be place holders referring people to other articles.
Bookworm857158367 (
talk) 16:59, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
- This is unduly confusing considering the number of other things that might have the name or might have the name in the future such as a single-named performer or an organization or painting, etc. The standard title
Name (given name) clarifies that the topic is tge history and usage of tge name. These are not disambiguation articles. They are properly articles regarding usage of tge name.
Bookworm857158367 (
talk) 15:50, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
|
The Original Barnstar |
| Congrats on being the oldest still active editor of Taylor University CavsFan45 ( talk) 18:36, 10 January 2024 (UTC) |
- From the editor: NINETEEN MORE YEARS! NINETEEN MORE YEARS!
- Special report: Public Domain Day 2024
- Technology report: Wikipedia: A Multigenerational Pursuit
- News and notes: In other news ... see ya in court!
- WikiProject report: WikiProjects Israel and Palestine
- Obituary: Anthony Bradbury
- Traffic report: The most viewed articles of 2023
- Comix: Conflict resolution
I was trying to revert vandalism (the "habitual line-stepper" thing), and it seems your attempts to do the same were caught up in that. I am not a vandal and am sorry for the inconvenience! Patient Zero talk 00:40, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
What's the rush? I was just gearing-up to begin an article on the Remington Starfire [1] and you removed my preliminary addition to the Starfire disambiguation page. Have a look at the Olivetti Valentine too – this is where I spotted the Remington Starfire (and also another interesting typewriter called the Monpti, which could also be a useful addition to this encyclopaedia!). Cheers,
References
- ^ Greg Fudacz. "Remington Starfire (1963-1969)". Antikeychop.com.
Cl3phact0 ( talk) 12:06, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
- WP:Write the article first. Entries on dab pages need to have some existing article with relevant content to link to. older ≠ wiser 14:59, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
- News and notes: Wikipedian Osama Khalid celebrated his 30th birthday in jail
- Opinion: Until it happens to you
- Disinformation report: How paid editors squeeze you dry
- Recent research: Croatian takeover was enabled by "lack of bureaucratic openness and rules constraining [admins]"
- Traffic report: DJ, gonna burn this goddamn house right down
Why did you delete Michael Williams? 193.119.102.196 ( talk) 11:04, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
- If you mean
this edit, there is no article for the person.
older ≠
wiser 13:22, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
- So! Many of the entries don’t. It’s just to provide information on a Michael Williams citation. Why not mind your own business? 193.119.102.196 ( talk) 21:22, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
 | Happy First Edit Day! Hi Bkonrad! On behalf of the Birthday Committee, I'd like to wish you a very happy anniversary of the day you made your first edit and became a Wikipedian! The Herald (Benison) ( talk) 02:31, 13 February 2024 (UTC) |
 |
- News and notes: Wikimedia Russia director declared "foreign agent" by Russian gov; EU prepares to pile on the papers
- Disinformation report: How low can the scammers go?
- Serendipity: Is this guy the same as the one who was a Nazi?
- Traffic report: Griselda, Nikki, Carl, Jannik and two types of football
- Crossword: Our crossword to bear
- Comix: Strongly
|
Happy First Edit Day, Bkonrad, from the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! Ezra Cricket ( talk) 04:59, 13 February 2024 (UTC) |
Wikidata item Q11312604 references "Snow Peak" as the English article, and that is the article to which the ja-wiki article is linked. Furthermore, it's unnecessary to have (company) in the name when the awkward parenthesis could be placed on a less-frequently visited disambiguation page. Please stop reverting the article to "Snow_Peak_(company)".
Ishiura ( talk) 12:29, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
- Wikidata does NOT in any way ever dictate how articles are titled in English Wikipedia. Do not move pages by cutting and pasting the content as that makes a mess of the edit history and attribution of contributors. If you are not able to move a page yourself, you can make request following instructions at WP:RM. As this is not an uncontroversial move, it should be discussed to establish consensus that the company is the primary topic. older ≠ wiser 12:36, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
Dear Bkonrad,
I'd like to extend a cordial invitation to you to join the Twenty Year Society, an informal group for editors who've been participating in the Wikipedia project for twenty years or more.
Best regards, Chris Troutman ( talk) 14:05, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
So 3 of my edits, on things like (name) and what it’s referring to pages, you quickly removed information about that name could refer to. All of them were specific abilities inside of a Roblox game. And I can’t cite for that because it’s a small edit and there isn’t gonna be an entire news article about a new ability inside of a Roblox game. May I politely ask why they were reverted? Also, I’m new to Wikipedia, just so you know. JAFactsDude ( talk) 02:27, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
- The edit summary was pretty clear (aside from one where I may have inadvertently hit rollback). None of the terms were so much as mentioned in the linked article. That is a minimal requirement for a disambiguation entry. There is no point to direct readers to pages that have nothing to say about a topic.
older ≠
wiser 03:40, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
- Okay, make sense now. JAFactsDude ( talk) 03:42, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
For fuck's sake, I'm working on it on my phone, you destroyed most of my work, what's the hurry??!@ Arminden ( talk) 15:00, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
- Get a grip. You removed the disambiguation template (without any indication more work was forthcoming) and I restored it. If you consider that as having destroyed most of your work, you seriously need to re-consider what you are doing. older ≠ wiser 15:49, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
|
The Editor's Barnstar | |
| Thank you for helping me fix the inconsistency in Greek letters! |
2001:EE0:4BCB:C070:ECDE:4F49:EAC2:92CB ( talk) 01:31, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
- News and notes: Wikimedia enters US Supreme court hearings as "the dolphin inadvertently caught in the net"
- Recent research: Images on Wikipedia "amplify gender bias"
- In the media: The Scottish Parliament gets involved, a wikirace on live TV, and the Foundation's CTO goes on record
- Obituary: Vami_IV
- Traffic report: Supervalentinefilmbowlday
- WikiCup report: High-scoring WikiCup first round comes to a close
Back in 2004-2008, when I was an active contributor, and I'd see someone make a change that was useful, but required some extra work to make it comply with the rules, I would do that work for them, rather than reverting the change.
It appears things have changed in the last 20 years. Feel free to edit the neck gaiter article to describe how it can be referred to as a "buff". Here are some sources (usage is colloquial, hasn't quite made it into the Macquarie Dictionary yet). I'm going to log out for another decade or so. Aram գուտանգ 21:18, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
What was the reason for the revert? Also, Chime is a prominent DJ, albeit without a wikipedia page yet, I thought this should suffice in the meantime. Perhaps it should be moved to a different section of the Chime page? Or should I provide a source? Finesden ( talk) 23:17, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
- The purpose of disambiguation pages is to help readers navigate to existing articles with relevant content. If the is no article to direct readers to, then there is no reason to add an entry to the disambiguation page.
older ≠
wiser 23:22, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
- Okay, thanks. I'll try to keep that in mind when editing disambiguation pages.
- But on that note, how come this exists on the page: "Amazon Chime, an enterprise collaboration service from Amazon Web Services". It doesn't link to a page called Amazon Chime.
Finesden (
talk) 23:31, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
- Without scouring history, I couldn't say for certain, but it may be that the linked article Amazon Web Services used to contain some mention of Chime. But there is no trace I can see in the article, so it should be removed. older ≠ wiser 23:47, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
My edit on /info/en/?search=CML
@Bkonrad Respected sir,
Many thanks for reverting my tag on the above page. Since I am a beginner, I would like to know why. So I do not make the same mistake again.
I am sure, that "CML" is a well-known and accepted abbreviation of "Classic metaphyseal lesions". I can support this statement with several authentic references. But last time when I did it [on some other disambiguation page], the tag was reverted, and when requested to educate me, the answer was that "no references are allowed on Disambiguation pages."
So I am -kind of - in a bind. If I put an authentic reference, the tag is reverted, because it is not allowed. If I do not put such a reference, the tag is reverted [for the supposed reason], that it is an unacceptable abbreviation.
So what should a beginner do?
Kindly enlighten and oblige. Thanks.
Anil1956 ( talk) 03:47, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
- Anil1956, your edit did not link to any existing article. The sole purpose of disambiguation pages is to help readers find articles with content relevant for an ambiguous topic. Please review WP:disambiguation and WP:MOSDAB (or see WP:DDD for a very brief summary). older ≠ wiser 17:54, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
Regarding TACL (disambiguation)
I noticed you removed my {{
db-g7}} from
TACL (disambiguation). You left the edit note Perfectly fine redirect
. But I don't see why anyone would link to
TACL (disambiguation) if they mean to link to a disambiguation for TACL when
TACL is itself already a disambiguation. I only created the page in the first place because
TACL was previously not a dab, but rather contained the contents of
TACL (programming language), which has since been moved to that page. Could you clarify your reasoning?
Brusquedandelion (
talk) 05:01, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
- See WP:INTDABLINK. While at present, there aren't any pages that need to link to this particular dab (such as in a hatnote or see also section), this redirect would be used if any such need arose. Chances are that even if this redirect were deleted, it would have soon been recreated. older ≠ wiser 09:07, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
- Technology report: Millions of readers still seeing broken pages as "temporary" disabling of graph extension nears its second year
- Recent research: "Newcomer Homepage" feature mostly fails to boost new editors
- Traffic report: He rules over everything, on the land called planet Dune
- Humour: Letters from the editors
- Comix: Layout issue
Unexplained revert on AXA (disambiguation)
Hello. You’ve removed the mention of the biggest Dutch bicycle lock manufacturer without any explanation in this edit, care to explain please? Thanks. Andrej Shadura ( talk) 06:58, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- In the media: Censorship and wikiwashing looming over RuWiki, edit wars over San Francisco politics and another wikirace on live TV
- News and notes: A sigh of relief for open access as Italy makes a slight U-turn on their cultural heritage reproduction law
- WikiConference report: WikiConference North America 2023 in Toronto recap
- WikiProject report: WikiProject Newspapers (Not WP:NOTNEWS)
- Recent research: New survey of over 100,000 Wikipedia users
- Traffic report: O.J., cricket and a three body problem
Hi Bkonrad,
would you please let me know why the edit of "Integration Management Office", which is hard to find, but often used in fusion contracts of companies with the acronym IMO was reverted? SabineWanner ( talk) 18:20, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
And I just noted that you also reverted TSA a couple of years ago. Why that? What is wrong with contributing rare acronyms? SabineWanner ( talk) 18:25, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
-
SabineWanner, disambiguation pages are not glossaries of acronyms. Each entry requires one blue link to a article that contains information about the ambiguous topic. Please review
WP:Disambiguation and
WP:MOSDAB. For a very abbreviated summary, see
WP:DDD.
older ≠
wiser 20:35, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
- Wikipedia has changed a lot even in this case. I remember very different times. Thanks for the clarification. This makes Wikipedia useless to a certain extent. It's good to know and will help a lot during my next conference, when I talk about "How to use Wikipedia for translation". SabineWanner ( talk) 05:24, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
...and not nitpicking another editor's choice of making an important word a wikilink. You're the reason so few potential new editors, many of them with subject matter expertise more impressive than yours in most (if not all) areas, have any interest in participating in the Wikipedia project. Please begin editing in good faith. Thank you! 100.15.238.176 ( talk) 04:19, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
Your concerns about "excessive information" and "excessive links" frustrate this librarian exceedingly. Are you concerned about bandwidth, or just an unhappy meddler? SteGenevieve ( talk) 04:34, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
| This is Bkonrad's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments. |
|
| Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119 |
|
Vasily Zavoyko: If you found it unnecessary to insert a disamb. page, - fine, - but please be more careful not to delete other good changes. This is a note to you. Thank you! Cotling ( talk) 14:47, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
Please stop deleting relevant content without valid reason. I'm referring to specifically to the Medina_(disambiguation) page.
You reverted my changes, and I improved the content, but you reverted again. In both cases without stating a valid reason. People searching for this music is likely to end up on this page. Not only is Medina part of the title and the name of the band, but the chorus repeats "Medina" over and over again.
Please stop reverting relentlessly, or at least explain why you think it doesn't belong. Thank you in advance. 149.88.17.134 ( talk) 19:10, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
I agree. Rogue editor on an ego trip. Wikipedia is diminished by this sort of person holding so much power on the site. Please begin editing in a way that reflects awareness of Wikipedia users' being a higher priority than your ego. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by SteGenevieve ( talk • contribs) 04:30, April 27, 2024 (UTC)
- Sorry, but no,
your edit was not an improvement. Please review
WP:MOSDAB; in particular,
WP:DABONE and
WP:DABMENTION and
MOS:DABNOENTRY.
older ≠
wiser 19:30, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
- Bro please stop this. You deleted A.FLOCK's edit man. He made it better. I tried to find beluga youtuber, he put that, then you Deleted it? Why? Now I can't find it. Awesome for your revert which made me look for more time to find what I was looking for. Thx. 103.172.217.171 ( talk) 07:48, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
The standard title for a given name article is Name (given name) since the word itself can refer to a number of other things besides the name. I moved these pages to titles that reflect the titles of multiple other given name articles. i have major objections to your reverting them. These are seemingly uncontroversial moves based on previously established precedent. Bookworm857158367 ( talk) 15:35, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
- No, these articles follow standard naming conventions in that a parenthetical phrase is not automatically appended. In cases where the name is the primary topic, there is no need for the parenthetical disambiguating phrase.
older ≠
wiser 15:43, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
- This is unduly confusing considering the number of other things that might have the name or might have the name in the future such as a single-named performer or an organization or painting, etc. The standard title
Name (given name) clarifies that the topic is tge history and usage of tge name. These are not disambiguation articles. They are properly articles regarding usage of tge name.
Bookworm857158367 (
talk) 15:50, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
- Preemptive disambiguation has been proposed many times and soundly rejected with few exceptions. There is none for Wikipedia:WikiProject Anthroponymy articles. older ≠ wiser 15:59, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
- (
talk page watcher) @
Bookworm857158367 If you think that either name is not the Primary Topic ( which could well be argued, with places, ships, etc), you could propose, for each, a not-uncontroversial multiple move of the disambiguation page to the basename and the given name page to the disambiguation name, as set out at
WP:Requested moves. There would then be wider discussion. There might be a lot of incoming links to clear up, I haven't checked.
Pam
D 16:53, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
- I’d argue that the name pages aren’t actually disambiguation names but are properly articles about the meaning, history and usage of the name itself. They have significance in and of themselves. They aren’t intended to be place holders referring people to other articles.
Bookworm857158367 (
talk) 16:59, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
- I think you misunderstood what PamD was suggesting. If you think the name articles are not the primary topic, you should propose a requested move of both the name article and the disambiguation page. For example, to move Cedric to Cedric (given name) and Cedric (disambiguation) to Cedric. older ≠ wiser 18:39, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
- I’d argue that the name pages aren’t actually disambiguation names but are properly articles about the meaning, history and usage of the name itself. They have significance in and of themselves. They aren’t intended to be place holders referring people to other articles.
Bookworm857158367 (
talk) 16:59, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
- This is unduly confusing considering the number of other things that might have the name or might have the name in the future such as a single-named performer or an organization or painting, etc. The standard title
Name (given name) clarifies that the topic is tge history and usage of tge name. These are not disambiguation articles. They are properly articles regarding usage of tge name.
Bookworm857158367 (
talk) 15:50, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
|
|
The Original Barnstar |
| Congrats on being the oldest still active editor of Taylor University CavsFan45 ( talk) 18:36, 10 January 2024 (UTC) |
- From the editor: NINETEEN MORE YEARS! NINETEEN MORE YEARS!
- Special report: Public Domain Day 2024
- Technology report: Wikipedia: A Multigenerational Pursuit
- News and notes: In other news ... see ya in court!
- WikiProject report: WikiProjects Israel and Palestine
- Obituary: Anthony Bradbury
- Traffic report: The most viewed articles of 2023
- Comix: Conflict resolution
I was trying to revert vandalism (the "habitual line-stepper" thing), and it seems your attempts to do the same were caught up in that. I am not a vandal and am sorry for the inconvenience! Patient Zero talk 00:40, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
What's the rush? I was just gearing-up to begin an article on the Remington Starfire [1] and you removed my preliminary addition to the Starfire disambiguation page. Have a look at the Olivetti Valentine too – this is where I spotted the Remington Starfire (and also another interesting typewriter called the Monpti, which could also be a useful addition to this encyclopaedia!). Cheers,
References
- ^ Greg Fudacz. "Remington Starfire (1963-1969)". Antikeychop.com.
Cl3phact0 ( talk) 12:06, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
- WP:Write the article first. Entries on dab pages need to have some existing article with relevant content to link to. older ≠ wiser 14:59, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
- News and notes: Wikipedian Osama Khalid celebrated his 30th birthday in jail
- Opinion: Until it happens to you
- Disinformation report: How paid editors squeeze you dry
- Recent research: Croatian takeover was enabled by "lack of bureaucratic openness and rules constraining [admins]"
- Traffic report: DJ, gonna burn this goddamn house right down
Why did you delete Michael Williams? 193.119.102.196 ( talk) 11:04, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
- If you mean
this edit, there is no article for the person.
older ≠
wiser 13:22, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
- So! Many of the entries don’t. It’s just to provide information on a Michael Williams citation. Why not mind your own business? 193.119.102.196 ( talk) 21:22, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
|
| Happy First Edit Day! Hi Bkonrad! On behalf of the Birthday Committee, I'd like to wish you a very happy anniversary of the day you made your first edit and became a Wikipedian! The Herald (Benison) ( talk) 02:31, 13 February 2024 (UTC) |
|
- News and notes: Wikimedia Russia director declared "foreign agent" by Russian gov; EU prepares to pile on the papers
- Disinformation report: How low can the scammers go?
- Serendipity: Is this guy the same as the one who was a Nazi?
- Traffic report: Griselda, Nikki, Carl, Jannik and two types of football
- Crossword: Our crossword to bear
- Comix: Strongly
|
|
Happy First Edit Day, Bkonrad, from the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! Ezra Cricket ( talk) 04:59, 13 February 2024 (UTC) |
Wikidata item Q11312604 references "Snow Peak" as the English article, and that is the article to which the ja-wiki article is linked. Furthermore, it's unnecessary to have (company) in the name when the awkward parenthesis could be placed on a less-frequently visited disambiguation page. Please stop reverting the article to "Snow_Peak_(company)".
Ishiura ( talk) 12:29, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
- Wikidata does NOT in any way ever dictate how articles are titled in English Wikipedia. Do not move pages by cutting and pasting the content as that makes a mess of the edit history and attribution of contributors. If you are not able to move a page yourself, you can make request following instructions at WP:RM. As this is not an uncontroversial move, it should be discussed to establish consensus that the company is the primary topic. older ≠ wiser 12:36, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
Dear Bkonrad,
I'd like to extend a cordial invitation to you to join the Twenty Year Society, an informal group for editors who've been participating in the Wikipedia project for twenty years or more.
Best regards, Chris Troutman ( talk) 14:05, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
So 3 of my edits, on things like (name) and what it’s referring to pages, you quickly removed information about that name could refer to. All of them were specific abilities inside of a Roblox game. And I can’t cite for that because it’s a small edit and there isn’t gonna be an entire news article about a new ability inside of a Roblox game. May I politely ask why they were reverted? Also, I’m new to Wikipedia, just so you know. JAFactsDude ( talk) 02:27, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
- The edit summary was pretty clear (aside from one where I may have inadvertently hit rollback). None of the terms were so much as mentioned in the linked article. That is a minimal requirement for a disambiguation entry. There is no point to direct readers to pages that have nothing to say about a topic.
older ≠
wiser 03:40, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
- Okay, make sense now. JAFactsDude ( talk) 03:42, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
For fuck's sake, I'm working on it on my phone, you destroyed most of my work, what's the hurry??!@ Arminden ( talk) 15:00, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
- Get a grip. You removed the disambiguation template (without any indication more work was forthcoming) and I restored it. If you consider that as having destroyed most of your work, you seriously need to re-consider what you are doing. older ≠ wiser 15:49, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
|
|
The Editor's Barnstar | |
| Thank you for helping me fix the inconsistency in Greek letters! |
2001:EE0:4BCB:C070:ECDE:4F49:EAC2:92CB ( talk) 01:31, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
- News and notes: Wikimedia enters US Supreme court hearings as "the dolphin inadvertently caught in the net"
- Recent research: Images on Wikipedia "amplify gender bias"
- In the media: The Scottish Parliament gets involved, a wikirace on live TV, and the Foundation's CTO goes on record
- Obituary: Vami_IV
- Traffic report: Supervalentinefilmbowlday
- WikiCup report: High-scoring WikiCup first round comes to a close
Back in 2004-2008, when I was an active contributor, and I'd see someone make a change that was useful, but required some extra work to make it comply with the rules, I would do that work for them, rather than reverting the change.
It appears things have changed in the last 20 years. Feel free to edit the neck gaiter article to describe how it can be referred to as a "buff". Here are some sources (usage is colloquial, hasn't quite made it into the Macquarie Dictionary yet). I'm going to log out for another decade or so. Aram գուտանգ 21:18, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
What was the reason for the revert? Also, Chime is a prominent DJ, albeit without a wikipedia page yet, I thought this should suffice in the meantime. Perhaps it should be moved to a different section of the Chime page? Or should I provide a source? Finesden ( talk) 23:17, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
- The purpose of disambiguation pages is to help readers navigate to existing articles with relevant content. If the is no article to direct readers to, then there is no reason to add an entry to the disambiguation page.
older ≠
wiser 23:22, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
- Okay, thanks. I'll try to keep that in mind when editing disambiguation pages.
- But on that note, how come this exists on the page: "Amazon Chime, an enterprise collaboration service from Amazon Web Services". It doesn't link to a page called Amazon Chime.
Finesden (
talk) 23:31, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
- Without scouring history, I couldn't say for certain, but it may be that the linked article Amazon Web Services used to contain some mention of Chime. But there is no trace I can see in the article, so it should be removed. older ≠ wiser 23:47, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
My edit on /info/en/?search=CML
@Bkonrad Respected sir,
Many thanks for reverting my tag on the above page. Since I am a beginner, I would like to know why. So I do not make the same mistake again.
I am sure, that "CML" is a well-known and accepted abbreviation of "Classic metaphyseal lesions". I can support this statement with several authentic references. But last time when I did it [on some other disambiguation page], the tag was reverted, and when requested to educate me, the answer was that "no references are allowed on Disambiguation pages."
So I am -kind of - in a bind. If I put an authentic reference, the tag is reverted, because it is not allowed. If I do not put such a reference, the tag is reverted [for the supposed reason], that it is an unacceptable abbreviation.
So what should a beginner do?
Kindly enlighten and oblige. Thanks.
Anil1956 ( talk) 03:47, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
- Anil1956, your edit did not link to any existing article. The sole purpose of disambiguation pages is to help readers find articles with content relevant for an ambiguous topic. Please review WP:disambiguation and WP:MOSDAB (or see WP:DDD for a very brief summary). older ≠ wiser 17:54, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
Regarding TACL (disambiguation)
I noticed you removed my {{
db-g7}} from
TACL (disambiguation). You left the edit note Perfectly fine redirect
. But I don't see why anyone would link to
TACL (disambiguation) if they mean to link to a disambiguation for TACL when
TACL is itself already a disambiguation. I only created the page in the first place because
TACL was previously not a dab, but rather contained the contents of
TACL (programming language), which has since been moved to that page. Could you clarify your reasoning?
Brusquedandelion (
talk) 05:01, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
- See WP:INTDABLINK. While at present, there aren't any pages that need to link to this particular dab (such as in a hatnote or see also section), this redirect would be used if any such need arose. Chances are that even if this redirect were deleted, it would have soon been recreated. older ≠ wiser 09:07, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
- Technology report: Millions of readers still seeing broken pages as "temporary" disabling of graph extension nears its second year
- Recent research: "Newcomer Homepage" feature mostly fails to boost new editors
- Traffic report: He rules over everything, on the land called planet Dune
- Humour: Letters from the editors
- Comix: Layout issue
Unexplained revert on AXA (disambiguation)
Hello. You’ve removed the mention of the biggest Dutch bicycle lock manufacturer without any explanation in this edit, care to explain please? Thanks. Andrej Shadura ( talk) 06:58, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- In the media: Censorship and wikiwashing looming over RuWiki, edit wars over San Francisco politics and another wikirace on live TV
- News and notes: A sigh of relief for open access as Italy makes a slight U-turn on their cultural heritage reproduction law
- WikiConference report: WikiConference North America 2023 in Toronto recap
- WikiProject report: WikiProject Newspapers (Not WP:NOTNEWS)
- Recent research: New survey of over 100,000 Wikipedia users
- Traffic report: O.J., cricket and a three body problem
Hi Bkonrad,
would you please let me know why the edit of "Integration Management Office", which is hard to find, but often used in fusion contracts of companies with the acronym IMO was reverted? SabineWanner ( talk) 18:20, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
And I just noted that you also reverted TSA a couple of years ago. Why that? What is wrong with contributing rare acronyms? SabineWanner ( talk) 18:25, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
-
SabineWanner, disambiguation pages are not glossaries of acronyms. Each entry requires one blue link to a article that contains information about the ambiguous topic. Please review
WP:Disambiguation and
WP:MOSDAB. For a very abbreviated summary, see
WP:DDD.
older ≠
wiser 20:35, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
- Wikipedia has changed a lot even in this case. I remember very different times. Thanks for the clarification. This makes Wikipedia useless to a certain extent. It's good to know and will help a lot during my next conference, when I talk about "How to use Wikipedia for translation". SabineWanner ( talk) 05:24, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
...and not nitpicking another editor's choice of making an important word a wikilink. You're the reason so few potential new editors, many of them with subject matter expertise more impressive than yours in most (if not all) areas, have any interest in participating in the Wikipedia project. Please begin editing in good faith. Thank you! 100.15.238.176 ( talk) 04:19, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
Your concerns about "excessive information" and "excessive links" frustrate this librarian exceedingly. Are you concerned about bandwidth, or just an unhappy meddler? SteGenevieve ( talk) 04:34, 27 April 2024 (UTC)