Jump to content

User talk:Bkonrad/Archive 82

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 75←Archive 80Archive 81Archive 82Archive 83Archive 84Archive 85

Revert

Hi there, I hope you don't mind that I undid your edit to Babes. I agree that babes doesn't stand well on its own as a disambig, but I think Babe is a better target than Babeș (duplication notwithstanding - because it is a name). I think this option is more agreeable for all involved. Thanks, menaechmi (talk) 18:09, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

No problem. older ≠ wiser 19:34, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Savage

Why did you remove the section Plays from the Savage disamb page ???

--RSStockdale (talk) 13:09, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

The play you added, The Curious Savage, appears to be an unabiguous partial title match. I see no indication the play is known as "savage". And by the way, the second link to the play's author was unneeded, even were the play a valid entry. older ≠ wiser 13:14, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

The Lone Star Ranger (1942 film)

Thanks for catching that. I had checked for the title under "The Lone Star Ranger (1942 film)" and "Zane Grey's Lone Star Ranger" (which is the alternate title which appears on many of the posters for the film). Onel5969 TT me 17:00, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, a bit confusing. The existing stub could use some TLC. I'd keep the redirect as the source you provided appears to include "The" in the title. Also some the content you included could be copied over.
If you're interested, you might want to check out The Last of the Duanes (1919 film) and The Lone Star Ranger (1919 film). Two films by same director with much the same cast based on different versions of the same story. As were The Last of the Duanes (1924 film) and The Lone Star Ranger (1923 film). older ≠ wiser 17:20, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
@Onel5969: Hmm, actually I wonder if some of the films listed at Last of the Duanes are actually duplicates of the films at The Lone Star Ranger (disambiguation). There may have been two 1919 films -- but I'm not sure about the others. older ≠ wiser 17:24, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
I'll definitely put it on my list of stuff to work on. I added a couple of brief facts to the other stub. I reverted your removing the CSD tag on the redirect. The existing stub is really misnamed, and should be moved to include the "The". That's the title on the copyright, and in all contemporaneous sources, like The Film DailyOnel5969 TT me 17:28, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
The only other legitimate option for the article would be Zane Grey's Lone Star Ranger, which appears on some of the promotional material. Nowhere is it referred to as simply Lone Star Ranger. Onel5969 TT me 17:31, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Apologies

Hi there. I've been thinking about my actions today and I would hereby apologize for vandalising the page "Rain (disambiguation)". The reason why I did this was because I was upset, because the weather prohibited me from going to a local fair that comes once a year, which I'm usually excited for. I was too afraid to accept that I cannot go because I saw some of my friends post pics of them enjoying the fair on Instagram and I didn't want to miss out on the fun.

I am deeply sorry and I hope you would forgive me. Signed, a Wikipedia contributor.

The Signpost: 6 September 2017

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:43, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Invitation to Admin confidence survey

Hello,

Beginning in September 2017, the Wikimedia Foundation Anti-harassment tool team will be conducting a survey to gauge how well tools, training, and information exists to assist English Wikipedia administrators in recognizing and mitigating things like sockpuppetry, vandalism, and harassment.

The survey should only take 5 minutes, and your individual response will not be made public. This survey will be integral for our team to determine how to better support administrators.

To take the survey sign up here and we will send you a link to the form.

We really appreciate your input!

Please let us know if you wish to opt-out of all massmessage mailings from the Anti-harassment tools team.

For the Anti-harassment tools team, SPoore (WMF), Community Advocate, Community health initiative (talk) 19:52, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Society Hill Revert

Please clue me in on why. Thanks.PHILA19106 (talk) 17:18, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

See Talk:Society Hill, Philadelphia#Moving primary topic Society Hill, Philadelphia to Society Hill. older ≠ wiser 17:20, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Nova (disambiguation)

Thanks for spotting that one I'd missed. Looked like we both missed it from the history. In general with these sections, I feel urge to put Fictional characters (possibly also the increasing use of Fictional entities) at the bottom next to Other uses, just like People. Widefox; talk 14:14, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

TRF , The Rotary Foundation (part of Rotray Internationsal Chairty

Dear BKonrad, I am a Rotarian at Elk Rapids Rotary Club in Northern Michigan near Traverse City. I noticed that my posts were undone by several times. I have tried to update my posts with relevant information and appropriate links to substantiate the TRF nomenclature. It is not a big deal to me, but the 1.2 million members recognize the TRF short form of The Rotary foundation. If these are not good enough, I can get the district to crate an official link to connect TRF to The Rotary Foundation. This is my first attempt to contribute to Wiki page. May be you can suggest a sure fire way I can satisfy the Wiki requirements. Thank you very much and have a great evening / day! Bob Chaphalkar Bobchaphalkar (talk) 01:59, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

list of battery types, battery

the items you removed were from mechanical battery, encompassing flywheel and gravity battery ; neither of those fit in the list of battery types, which really focusses on electric-chemical batteries

What would you rather do.. retroactively add those there? I don't think it fits at all.

i had originally made a specific page for mechanical battery, but then someone else merged it, and now you delete..

should i make the original again, or revert your edit? MfortyoneA (talk) 18:37, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

zwinger, any ideas..

zwinger used 'to be animal enclosure' - (clearly wrong , which is why I changed it to animal enclosure), I see you removed it because animal enclosure doesn't mention it, however is deleting it altogether too extreme, google confirms zwinger supposedly translates as kennel in german, would it be appropriate to just say that in the DAB page directly? MfortyoneA (talk) 13:35, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Dab pages are not glossaries of foreign language terms. The purpose of disambiguation pages is to help readers find articles for ambiguous topics. Disambiguation pages should not include details that are not supported by existing articles. They are not article themselves and do not contain references or external links. If there is no existing article on Wikipedia supporting the claimed use, there is nothing to disambiguate. older ≠ wiser 13:39, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
Also, FWIW, please stop linking to enclosure (disambiguation). In general, links to disambiguation pages are usually mistaken and should be fixed to point to a more specific article on the dab page. If you do not know which article to link to, you can place a {{dn}} tag on an article. Or in cases where a generic sense is meant, simply unlink the term or link it to wiktionary. older ≠ wiser 13:42, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 September 2017

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:19, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Forest of Galtres, enclosure

the text says: "a band of forty armed men assembled from five villages threw down enclosures and burned hedges in the Forest of Galtres in the plague year of 1348" 'threw down enclosures' - that sounds more like 'physical enclosures' than legal ones? this is why i thought it's better to link to disambiguation, then someone who really knows what this means can clarify with a more specific link. conversely could the text be re-worded to make it clearer

MfortyoneA (talk) 10:54, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

@MfortyoneA: As I tried to explain above, if you are unsure about which entry on a disambiguation page a term should link to, place {{dn}} after the term. This will mark it as needing disambiguation and other editors can attend to it. When you change the link to enclosure (disambiguation) you are effectively marking it as an intentional link to a disambiguation page that should not be further disambiguated. older ≠ wiser 12:11, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
Regarding the specifics of Forest of Galtres, I think given the context it is quite clear that it is the enclosure of common pasturage that is being protested. older ≠ wiser 12:13, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
threw down enclosures .. does that mean they took enclosure title documents and threw them down, or that they tore down enclosing walls/fences ? MfortyoneA (talk) 12:57, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
I've no idea what you mean by "took enclosure title documents and threw them down". From the context, I find it crystal clear that common pasturage was being enclosed in the "legal" sense and that is what was being protested. In practical terms, when such common land underwent enclosure, that often meant putting up fences or hedgerows, which would have been what the protesters likely would have been throwing down. older ≠ wiser 13:51, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
so the enclosures here really means physical fences and hedgerows? . you don't 'throw down an enclosure of common land, thats what I was illustrating. MfortyoneA (talk) 14:32, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
I think you're splitting hairs. The physical enclosures as used here were to effect the enclosure of common land. There is little benefit for the reader to link them to some article about physical enclosures when the other article is what provides meaningful content that informs the article. That said, it could perhaps be phrased differently in the article, but there is little benefit to the reader to overlink to common dictionary senses of a term. older ≠ wiser 14:46, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
every link is an opportunity to encode more machine processable information in this huge body of text.. it seems useful to me to investigate. For example, there's this 'hover cards feature' where you get an summary and image under the cursor as you move the mouse around the page . What i've discovered is slightly different slants here, and there's a separate article inclosure act.. it might be possible at least to find an entry point into the concept that emphasises that specific context a bit more. MfortyoneA (talk) 14:55, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
every link is an opportunity to encode more machine processable information in this huge body of text, umm no. Emphatically, no. Wikipedia is first and foremost for human readers. Machine processing of information is a far distant secondary, tertiary, or quaternary level of priority. I'd suggest slowing down and trying to understand Wikipedia a little better before you go off expending a lot of efforts pursuing idiosyncratic objectives that may be at odds with current practices. older ≠ wiser 15:03, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
it could be done synergistically. An accurate link gives the human reader the benefit of a nice hovercard (including more images, brings the activity of reading it to life a bit more); there is also translation to consider; MfortyoneA (talk) 15:30, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
Accurate linking, yes. Proliferation of redirects and changing links to use such redirects, less helpful. In the case of enclosure, you may be fine to correct links that were not associated with English agricultural real estate. But you are definitely jumping the gun to change links that do intend that meaning to use a redirect while a requested move that directly bears on the question of the title is in progress. Wait until the RM is over, and if a new title is agreed on, the links can easily be updated then. Also, Wikipedia is not a dictionary and there is not going to be an article for every word. In many cases, where a common term has been mistakenly linked to an article, rather than go though artificial convolutions, it is often easiest (and most beneficial for the reader) to simply unlink the common term; or in some cases the link can be changed to link to wiktionary. older ≠ wiser 16:24, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Please stop deleting my work.

Please stop deleting the work I keep adding to the page Nightshade, as it is in no way a malicious edit. Nightshade has been decided as the next book title in the series. To verify this, please check the page "Never Say Die". TomBarker23 (talk) 20:25, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Deletion 1

Information icon Hello, I'm TomBarker23. I noticed that you recently removed content without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. —Preceding undated comment added 10:58, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

no indication in linked article of being known by these initials!!!

Is that your favorite edit comment? C7BK (talk) 17:19, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Could you please stop reverting my edits?

Thank you, and FYI I live in one of the most technologically connected places in the world and you will never block all of my IP's. C7BK (talk) 17:39, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Nothing personal, but if your edits don't follow applicable guidelines, they are likely to be removed whether by me or by other editors. older ≠ wiser 17:43, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Go ahead and try to get me blocked. You won't win. 50.242.100.251 (talk) 23:46, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

EW

You've been around long enough to know you shouldn't be edit warring on Mum (disambiguation). Toddst1 (talk) 01:05, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I shouldnt have let it fester. But when dealing with editors who ignore the very same rules that they cite to justify their edits and then insult other editors when this is pointed out....it's just a bit much. older ≠ wiser 01:11, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Better late than never?

I just wanted you to know that I regret telling you to fuck off. I actually regretted it more-or-less as soon as I had said it. You were wrong about the article/guidelines, but the message you left me was certainly not at all impolite, & there was no call for me to have blown up the way I did. Believe it or not, I was actually composing a note of contrition when Todd showed up at my talk page with his nonsense. If I apologized at that point, I was afraid it would have come across as backing down from his puerile threats (the only thing I regret about telling him to fuck off is not putting it in ALLCAPS). Then came the ANI drama-fest; at that point, I was afraid an apology would have come across as a passive "unblock" request. While not particularly cordial, there had been nothing block-worthy about my conduct, so I again figured the timing wasn't right. Now that the smoke has cleared (and umpteen hours of editor-productivity have been needlessly and pointlessly wasted), please allow me to do what I had intended to do in the first place: I was out of line, and I apologize. Best, Joefromrandb (talk) 02:53, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

@Joefromrandb:. Thanks for the apology. I'm sorry things got out of hand. Obviously I disagree regarding the "article/guidelines", as the relevant guidelines are explicitly clear as to applicability. But in any case, glad you're back. older ≠ wiser 10:18, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

"Ree" Wikipedia Page

Why did you remove "Ree Reh" from the "Ree" Wikipedia page?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by HasnainXD (talk • contribs) 03:34, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 October 2017

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:36, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Stop reverting

Or else! D is for Death! (talk) 01:37, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Polyclinic

Please, could you explain (in the article talk) the reason for your revert? 85.193.199.225 (talk) 04:03, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Trackway (disambiguation)

Hi BK. I'm interested in your opinion at Trackway (disambiguation), which I tagged for speedy deletion but was declined as it "could possibly be saved as a list". Is there precedent for a ____ (disambiguation) page to be (or redirect to) a list? My arguments for deletion are at Talk:Trackway (disambiguation)#Delete. Hoof Hearted (talk) 12:37, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

@Hoof Hearted: That particular user has history of arguing to keep disambiguation pages on IMO tenuous grounds. I'd suggest taking it to AfD for a full discussion. I agree with you that it is a bunch of partial title matches that don't belong on a disambiguation. The unambiguous specific instances of the primary topic can be listed at the primary topic (or perhaps at a list under some other title if there is consensus). older ≠ wiser 15:06, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the suggestion; I can do that. But what would you think if I simply redirected trackway (disambiguation) to trackway, and let that article serve as the broad concept/list/DAB as it is? It seems to be making distinctions between terms ("disambiguating", if you will). Or do you think this is something that should really be discussed first? Hoof Hearted (talk) 15:45, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

WP:VPT

Sorry, my keyboard malfunctioned when I was going through my watchlist. Alex Shih (talk) 13:22, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bkonrad/Archive_82&oldid=811848957"