User talk:Bkonrad/Archive 48

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


← Archive 47 Archive 48 Archive 49 →

The Signpost: 02 January 2012


Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Sundries (miscellaneous items), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sundries (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:09, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Favor

Please review this situation and take action (revert?) accordingly. Thanks! Wikipedia_talk:Consensus#Noetica_edit. I gotta run. --Born2cycle (talk) 01:02, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't follow that page, and to be honest, certain editors there, despite using flowery and polite-sounding words, are vexations to the spirit that I'd prefer to avoid. olderwiser 02:10, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
To say nothing of canvassing, if I may interpolate a point from the very policy page in question:

"While it is fine – even encouraged – to invite people into a discussion to obtain new insights and arguments, it is not acceptable to invite only people favorable to a particular point of view, or to invite people in a way that will prejudice their opinions on the matter. [...] actions that could reasonably be interpreted as an attempt to 'stuff the ballot box' or otherwise compromise the consensus-building process are considered disruptive editing."

I too have had little to do with that page; but I now find disturbing developments there that need addressing. Against principles that are as perennial as the grass.
NoeticaTea? 02:19, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 09 January 2012

Rick Snyder and YouTube

Please revisit your removal of the material and reference from the article. The YouTube video was posted by the copyright owner; there is nothing wrong with the reference. See WP:LINKVIO. I would restore it, but I've reverted too many times. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:40, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

January 2012 Newsletter for WikiProject United States and supported projects

WikiProject United States logo.svg

The January 2012 issue of the WikiProject United States newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

 
--Kumi-Taskbot (talk) 18:45, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 January 2012


WP:AN mention

You were mentioned in a discussion at WP:AN; Wikipedia:AN#Should_editors_be_discouraged_from_asking_admins_to_justify_their_actions.3F --Born2cycle (talk) 17:42, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

"as I have already indicated support previously."

This poll is turning into an impressive list of arguments against unnecessary disambiguation from quite a variety of editors. So, for posterity, I was wondering if you might want to include your position in your own words, rather than, "as I have already indicated support previously." --Born2cycle (talk) 23:08, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 January 2012

Talk:Indigenous_inhabitant#Requested_move

Indigenous peoples! Doh! Of course it should redirect there! Thanks for bringing that to my attention; !vote changed accordingly. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:47, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

January 2012

Hello. Regarding the recent revert you made: you may already know about them, but you might find Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace useful. After a revert, these can be placed on the user's talk page to let them know you considered their edit inappropriate, and also direct new users towards the sandbox. They can also be used to give a stern warning to a vandal when they've been previously warned. Thank you. M D Potter. Any comments? 17:10, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Mildred Seydell

Dear BK: Please take a look. If you go to User_Talk:LadyofShalott, there are more details. The article has now turned into a "copyright violation investigation." I am frankly appalled. I replied here. If I can reach you with an e-mail (you can reach me via wikipedia e-mail), I can send you the two reports I got from Desktop Plagiarism checker. Sigh. If you would please take a look, it would be greatly appreciated. Thank you. 7&6=thirteen () 00:34, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Harold (given name), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Master (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:52, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Reply

You have new message/s Hello. You have a new message at GoingBatty's talk page. GoingBatty (talk) 17:37, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Bolshevist Russia

Hi there, just dropping by to let you know I reverted your redirect of that page (and its' redirect) to the way they were before. Apparently (judging from the talk page) there is no consensus to move the article elsewhere or merge it with the other article. Please use the talk page before you delete or redirect a page. //Halibutt 23:40, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

The page is a mal-formed atrocity of a disambiguation page. olderwiser 23:45, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
I couldn't find any rule that would allow such pages to be moved against consensus. And Wikipedia:mal-formed atrocity of a disambiguation page doesn't exist yet. //Halibutt 17:39, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 January 2012

"one blue link for dab entries"

(the comment you left on reverting my edit to add a wikilink within a disambiguation page entry).

Not meaning to be combative, but I'm not familiar with this rule or the rationale for it. Isn't it simply more convenient for people to have more links to subjects that they may be interested in reading about? If someone has looked up "Mike Jones" because they want to read about "The Tackle", why should they be forced to click on two links to get there?

Could you explain this rule to me, or link me to a place where it's discussed, please? Thanks. JudahH (talk) 16:09, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Hello, If you don't mind, I can answer this. These pages can be a source of confusion (I found myself doing things incorrectly early on as well) but the guidelines are presented at MOS:DABENTRIES. Hope this helps, Dawnseeker2000 16:27, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Engel

What you did with Paul Engle made much more sense than what I did. Thanks. – Wdchk (talk) 17:23, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 06 February 2012

MSU Interview

Dear Bkonrad,


My name is Jonathan Obar user:Jaobar, I'm a professor in the College of Communication Arts and Sciences at Michigan State University and a Teaching Fellow with the Wikimedia Foundation's Education Program. This semester I've been running a little experiment at MSU, a class where we teach students about becoming Wikipedia administrators. Not a lot is known about your community, and our students (who are fascinated by wiki-culture by the way!) want to learn how you do what you do, and why you do it. A while back I proposed this idea (the class) to the community HERE, were it was met mainly with positive feedback. Anyhow, I'd like my students to speak with a few administrators to get a sense of admin experiences, training, motivations, likes, dislikes, etc. We were wondering if you'd be interested in speaking with one of our students.


So a few things about the interviews:

  • Interviews will last between 15 and 30 minutes.
  • Interviews can be conducted over skype (preferred), IRC or email. (You choose the form of communication based upon your comfort level, time, etc.)
  • All interviews will be completely anonymous, meaning that you (real name and/or pseudonym) will never be identified in any of our materials, unless you give the interviewer permission to do so.
  • All interviews will be completely voluntary. You are under no obligation to say yes to an interview, and can say no and stop or leave the interview at any time.
  • The entire interview process is being overseen by MSU's institutional review board (ethics review). This means that all questions have been approved by the university and all students have been trained how to conduct interviews ethically and properly.


Bottom line is that we really need your help, and would really appreciate the opportunity to speak with you. If interested, please send me an email at obar@msu.edu (to maintain anonymity) and I will add your name to my offline contact list. If you feel comfortable doing so, you can post your name HERE instead.

If you have questions or concerns at any time, feel free to email me at obar@msu.edu. I will be more than happy to speak with you.

Thanks in advance for your help. We have a lot to learn from you.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Obar --Jaobar (talk) 15:51, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Neoteric, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Alexandrian (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:48, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Empire disambiguation edit

Hi. I wasn't happy with your recent deletion of my explanatory verbiage on the Empire (Strategy game) entry on the Empire (disambiguation) page. I wouldn't have added it if I did not think it necessary; I am pretty sure that most people familiar with the Reed College game would not find it obvious from the previous content on that page. Almost every single item (of the scores on this page) has some small amount of explanatory verbiage. Perhaps I had put too much; that's a reasonable concern. But eliminating it is not the right answer, IMO. Thomas Phinney (talk) 22:47, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

The explanation might be relevant for disambiguation if there were separate articles for the two versions. But as they are covered by the same article, the extended description serves no purpose for disambiguation. olderwiser 00:28, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
I fail to see the reason in your explanation. A note saying that a given entry covers versions A & B is extremely helpful in disambiguating from other entries that cover versions C through Z. Unfortunately the parenthetical part of the title does nothing to disambiguate that entry from many of the others (all of the computer games by the same name are strategy games, for example). There are other board games by the same name that also have the same title, so putting in enough info to be clear that it does not refer to any of them is also helpful. Thomas Phinney (talk) 18:00, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

North etc

Thanks for accepting that the image is out of place on a dismambig page - as per sections - it depends on how long the page is which is subjective - I can accept your view on that - for a page like Sud-Ouest I think it's clear that sections aren't needed - because it is so short that it can be seen on one page.

There is a minor issue with people disambiguating all things starting with "xxx" on page "xxx" - the page is really only for things that can be called "xxx" - eg imagine the mess if the same was done on "red" eg red can ref to : "red apple" "red button" "red cap" "red car" !!Mddkpp (talk) 18:35, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

re sections, a slightly geeky response is that using section headings produces somewhat cleaner html than using ; to produce definition lists to achieve an output format but without the semantic content of any html definitions. If anything, I'd prefer to use simple bolding of the headings on short pages, but in most cases where there are three or more headings, I'd go with actual sections. olderwiser 18:51, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Plastomer

Don't know what's up with Nyttend. He's still refusing to believe it's a G6. Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 20:23, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

There is sometimes an apparent gap in comprehending the obvious. olderwiser 20:25, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 13 February 2012

Edit of killing fields reverted back

Please see references cited for killing fields disambiguous referring to "killing Fields" being a strain of marijuana. How is my adding this not adding to a legitimate list of disambigyous items.

Can you please provide a reason for removing my Killing Fields entry? It is in fact a strain of marijuana and should be listed under the disambiguous entry for Killing fields.

fag

"Disambiguation pages are not articles; they are aids in searching." I must be reading it wrong. --Dana60Cummins (talk) 17:40, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Right -- aids in searching for the ambiguous term, not for the other terms mentioned on the page. The linked articles should support the usage described on the disambiguation page. olderwiser 17:45, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 February 2012

On Your Recent Edit In Dhruv Article

I do not agree with your recent edit in Dhruv disambiguation page. You have removed an important entry. I have mentioned it in talk page. Thanks! --Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 03:43, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I did not see, you have entered it in See Also section! But I feel this should not be in See Also section since this is an important entry. Dhruv is alternate spelling of Dhruva. You can do a Google Search to check it. --Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 03:46, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Reeves (surname), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages James Reeves and Richard Reeves (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:17, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 February 2012