User talk:Bkonrad/Archive 40

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 39 Archive 40 Archive 41

Indian River (Mullett Lake)

Nuvola apps important.svg

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a search with the contents of Indian River (Mullett Lake), and it appears to be very similar to another Wikipedia page: Indian River (Michigan). It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case. If you are intentionally trying to rename an article, please see Help:Moving a page for instructions on how to do this without copying and pasting. If you are trying to move or copy content from one article to a different one, please see Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia and be sure you have acknowledged the duplication of material in an edit summary to preserve attribution history.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. CorenSearchBot (talk) 20:58, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 6 September 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 22:27, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 13 September 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 19:03, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

ID disambig

Hi, sorry to potentially bump heads a few minutes ago. You made an excellent point in your undo. I followed up here, and apologize for a slightly snippy edit summary. Point being that there's a commonly misunderstood difference between the relative neologism "intelligent design" which was part of an educational and political strategy, and the more general "argument from design" or teleological argument. Hope that helps--IOW any reader that searches for "intelligent design" goes to the article itself which has plenty of explanation, while the disambig, should the reader choose to seek it, would now point to any other uses. Reasonable? ... Kenosis (talk) 03:40, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

No, I don't really follow what you're saying, nor particularly care all that much. However, the style guide for disambiguation pages recommends including a brief description of the term, even when it is a primary topic. The description should echo the description in the targeted article. olderwiser 11:37, 18 September 2010 (UTC)


As I'm sure you noticed, TenPoundHammer is still removing redirects from dab pages, despite my conversation with him (which he has since deleted, without archiving, from his talk page). Just to let you know, I rv'd all his dab page edits through 07:12 (UTC) (I think that's right; 01:12 CDT). I don't even bother with the courtesy of an explanatory edit summary anymore; if he's going to act like a vandal, I'm going to treat him like one.--ShelfSkewed Talk 06:40, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 September 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 21:37, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

William Smith

Point taken and thank you for directing me to the proper resource and method. Admittedly I was unaware of those guidelines. I will work on the recommended course of action and then re-add my contribution when its appropriate. Best regards, Scalhotrod (talk) 04:27, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Entymology of façade

It appears by your revisions or undues of my edits to façade that you may in fact be able to help Possibly explain the 'When and Where history' & 'Usage' of the word façade and if so could you please add one. It would be most helpful in making Wikipeda more useful. If not could you help pass this message along so that others may add or collaborate on one thank you :) (talk) 15:27, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Dimmu Borgir

I did the link for proof only. I had no choice. But like I've said before, there are millions of articles on wiki that use the actual website as their own reference. An Abbreviation could mean anything. If I find another page claiming that they are called DB and present it to you, will you accept? M4pnt (talk) 20:40, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

There are at least two, perhaps three, distinct issues. First, references do not belong on disambiguation pages -- the supporting references belong in the articles. Second, Other stuff exists is not really a very good rationale for inclusion. The use of self-published sources should follow relevant policies and guidelines. Third, the occasional use of the abbreviation by the band's web site is not very strong evidence that the band is commonly known by the abbreviation. Disambiguation pages are primarily navigation aides to help readers find articles that might otherwise share the same title. That is, inclusion on a disambiguation page is essentially making a case that the article on a subject could have the same title as the disambiguation page. But really, as far as I'm concerned the bar is pretty low for inclusion -- what is important is that the linked article should support the usage. olderwiser 20:53, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

ok so we can say screw the link that I put in the beginning. Like I said, I did it for proof because I'll assume you saw the link. Actually don't you need references on every page? I don't think it's fair that others get abbreviated and dimmu can't. M4pnt (talk) 21:33, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean. The usage must be supported by the articles linked to from the disambiguation page. That is where any references belong. Strictly speaking disambiguation pages are not articles and have a separate set of guidelines governing usage. See WP:DAB and WP:MOSDAB for more information. If you are aware of other disambiguation pages that have an entry for an abbreviation that is not supported by the linked article, it should be either be sourced or removed. That is what Other stuff exists is about. Just because some other people do a crappy job of editing doesn't make it OK. olderwiser 21:39, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Re: coord parameter syntax

I'm sorry you got bitten. (You're not the first.)

I assume you already know about the general documentation at Template:Coord/doc. The best way to distinguish source and mouth coordinates is to use the name= parameter, which you already know about. In addition, the title (main) coordinates for an article about a river should always be those of the mouth, per Wikipedia:WikiProject Geographical coordinates/Linear. --Stepheng3 (talk) 18:01, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

That person

Thought you might want to see this [[1]], I didn't know he was God's chosen.Tirronan (talk) 20:42, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 September 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 20:38, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Repeated links proposal

This is a proposal to change the Repeated links section of the MOS. Please edit &/or comment on the talk page as you see fit.

Feel free to move the proposal/discussion straight to the Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (linking) if you wish. I just thought we might establish some sort of consensus first, out of the heat and fury over there. --Michael C. Price talk 10:16, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Fall River

Hey, now that Fall River is a disambig, don't forget about WP:FIXDABLINKS! Thanks, --JaGatalk 21:30, 28 September 2010 (UTC)


Is there any special reason you feel the Hebrew meaning of 'Lee' should be ommitted? --Nim205 (talk) 22:06, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Disambiguation pages are not dictionaries. The content, with a source, might be appropriate at the article on the given name Lee (given name) or possibly at wiktionary. olderwiser 23:24, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

If the Korean and Chinese meaning of Lee is proper on this page, the Hebrew meaning should be listed too. It is not a dictionary entry, but further elaboration of the various meanings of the word. --Nim205 (talk) 19:13, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Neither the Korean and Chinese entries are "the meaning" of the term in those languages, but are links to articles about the surnames in those languages. Without a linked article, there is nothing to disambiguate. The meanings of a term is addressed by wikitionary. olderwiser 19:48, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

You don't seem to be reading my edit. I've Inserted an entry linking Lee (Hebrew) with the Lee (given name) page. Please refrain from unediting it. If you feel that the entry should be phrased/locted/linked differently, we can discuss the issue and reach an agreed formula. Erasing what I write without suggesting an alternative is not acceptable. --Nim205 (talk) 21:27, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

That only unnecessarily duplicates a link already on the page. There is no need for the separate link. olderwiser 22:03, 2 October 2010 (UTC)


Example: there is NO Mizuki Inaba, there is Mizuki Inaba. There was a LOT of articles that got merged into lists, or completely merged-deleted. I link to the list if there's such on the list, if not, there's no link. Work on my links if you need. --Asperchu (talk) 14:36, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Please read and understand WP:MOSDAB. Linking though redirects is not only acceptable, but preferred in many cases. olderwiser 14:38, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

And no, I don't really think my structure is only good. Just don't scre links back when I repair them! The direct links only when there's such article. Yes, I checked them all (also sometimes there's a redirect to the list, but the character (section) is not there, or there's a redirect to the main/single article, then there's no link and only to the work they are from). Keep the GOOD links, god damn it. --Asperchu (talk) 14:40, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I will continue to edit disambiguation pages that are improperly formatted. I've no problem with the work you're doing, but please do not complain when your mistaken edits are changed to conform with applicable standards. olderwiser


GO AND CLICK:Morgana (Power Rangers) - Where is it redirecting? NOWHERE. But my CORRECT link: * Mora (Morgana) directs to her section!!! I meant Morgana Macawber actually.

So stop vandalizing. CHRIST. --Asperchu (talk) 14:45, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

As I've already said and you have quite obviously not bothered to check, please read and understand the applicable guideline for disambiguation pages. Linking though redirects is not only acceptable, but preferred in many cases. olderwiser 14:38, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

What "some cases"? Look at the example above - it's a false link AND a false redirect. I told you I checked and FIXED THEM ALL. And you're vandalizing. So cease this. Move the stuff around, change sections, just don't DAMAGE what I REPAIRED. This is vandalism, no less. --Asperchu (talk) 14:49, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

In what way is it a "false link" and a "false redirect"? olderwiser 14:51, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
  • False link: there's actually NO ARTICLE "Morgana Macawber"
  • False redirect: there's actually NO section "Morgana Macawber" in the article it redirects to (false redirect to such non-existing section).

Seriously, what's your fucking problem with my CORRECTIONS, I don't get at all. Also, now - threats? Get over yourself. What the hell. --Asperchu (talk) 14:54, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

You quite obviously do not understand (or have not bothered to try to understand) the applicable guidance at WP:MOSDAB. There is nothing wrong about linking through a redirect. Using a redirect is NOT a false link. Calling Morgana Macawber a false redirect is an exaggeration at best. The applicable content is in the article linked from the redirect. It might be possible to fine-tune the redirect, but it is not false.
Re: "some cases", please see Where redirecting may be appropriate: A redirect should be used to link to a specific section of an article if the title of that section is more or less synonymous with the disambiguated topic. Also see, Section and anchor point linking. olderwiser 15:04, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Am I wrong??

Hello, noticed you have reverted a couple of my edits on dab pages. Seemed to me that removing piping of links was the way to go but obviously if there is a convention otherwise then I will cease and desist. Just couldn't find it quickly; perhaps you can point it out to me. Regards (Crusoe8181 (talk) 03:37, 3 October 2010 (UTC)).

See WP:INTDABLINK. Cheers. olderwiser 10:44, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Biggar: People deletions 10 April 2010

I believe that the deletions (see above) were made without understanding that in some cultures names can be passed down generation to generation. I had tried to distinguish these individuals by their respective dates of birth and death. If you could suggest ways to improve my submission, I would be pleased to consider them.Michael Biggar (talk) 15:34, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

There is only one article with the title James Lyons Biggar. It is incorrect for the disambiguation page to have three entries all linking to the same page. If you are claiming that the other two persons merit an article, then please produce an article with verifiable sources. olderwiser 19:52, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for the suggestion. I will follow your advice. Cheers.Michael Biggar (talk) 04:02, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

America is not just USA

I'm discussing an edit you reverted (and a possible way forward) here: Talk:United_States#America_is_not_just_USA. Buzz-tardis (talk) 21:55, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 4 October 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 23:37, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Ya know..

As a sysop, you could just block User:Koczysz and stop the damage ahead of time, since you've already taken the liberty of tagging him as a sock. Tommy! 14:43, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

There is an ANI thread regarding that user who tagged you. Tommy! 14:55, 5 October 2010 (UTC)


Hi Bkonrad. I just want to apologize if I was too harsh in the ANI thread. I suppose I had been fighting too much vandalism and it kind of felt like a slap in the face more or less; and I know admins are never required to use their tools. Sincere apologies for any rudeness, Tommy! 16:57, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 October 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 06:27, 12 October 2010 (UTC)


Hey, I was able to find that Virg Bernero's middle name starts with a P (, but haven't been able to find the actual name. Just thought I'd let you know, as it is consistent with bio pages to have the middle name when available and the nickname would still come after the first name in quotes. --Criticalthinker (talk) 03:06, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

That's interesting. Personally, I think the article should be located at Virg Bernero as he is rarely referred to as Virgil in news media. olderwiser 12:18, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

False etymology > Folk Etymology

You participated in a discussion on the page Folk etymology as to whether it should be moved to False etymology. Despite the consensus on that discussion, the move was effected. I have requested that the move be reversed. I am notifying you as a party to that prior discussion. If you are interested, the current discussion is located here.μηδείς (talk) 04:20, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 October 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:13, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Fairchild page

Too many Links? My last name is Fairchild, please allow my updates to stand. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:39, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Please see the style guide for disambiguation pages. There should be exactly one navigable blue link per line. olderwiser 17:41, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

ok, thanks for the information. So can I please undo your revertion, and make changes to conform to one blue link? I can cite links for those two Red Link Fairchilds. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:45, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

1) the blue link must contain information specifically about the topic, otherwise the blue link is of no use for purposes of disambiguation. 2) it would be easier if you added information to the current page rather than revert back and then have to manually remove all the extra links you had previously added. olderwiser 17:47, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

OK, well I will undo it quickly just to copy what I have already done, then revert back to the current page, edit my work and then start over. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:52, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

You don't have to save the page -- you can open a version from history for editing and copy whatever you like and close the page without saving. olderwiser 17:57, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Why did you delete Joshua Fairchild Jr. ? Now I feel like you are encroaching. There are millions of pages that have red links. Can you please leave me alone? I would cite a source but there is no bibliography on that page. I can make a Joshua Fairchild Jr. page and cite numerous sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:42, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Again, please see the style guide for disambiguation pages. The redlink for Joshua Fairchild Jr.had no other incoming links and the single blue link provided did not mention Fairchild, thus failing the relevant criteria for inclusion. olderwiser 20:24, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

OK , I am going to go cite ALL of the signers of the Mormon Book of Commandments and spend some time on that page, and then I am going to relist Joshua Fairchild Jr. on that disambiguation page. Will that work? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:09, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Also, I would like to create a disambiguation of Fairchild itself. Linking Fairchild with Fairbairn. They have the same DNA. Then linking Armstrong with Fairbairn as they have the same DNA. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:54, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Medina Disambiguation

Dear Bkonrad. Have it your way - I don't play this game, I have better things to do. If you really want to help (not me, the Project), then be specific about what you have a problem with - don't just cite The Medina in Saudi Arabia means the city. In the Arab world or areas that once were part of the varuous Arab empires, the old inner core/ quarters of the cities are also called medinas. Linguistically and historically, these are related concepts. Therefore, it makes sens to keep them together, rather tan at the bottom of a long list of entries with no conection to Medina whatsoever. But you have already demonstrated that you are the type that likes to have things their way, so have it. --Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 16:46, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 October 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:32, 26 October 2010 (UTC)


Shall I delete the entire article and then restore minus edit summary vandalism? We do not tolerate attacks, and hiding edit summaries is an appropriate way to remove them. Nyttend (talk) 20:15, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

No. I would expect a simple apology and acknowledgement that what you did was mistaken. What you did is not warranted by the criteria or guidelines for using that tool. olderwiser 20:17, 30 October 2010 (UTC)