User talk:Bkonrad/Archive 48
|This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.|
|Archive 47||Archive 48||Archive 49|
- 1 The Signpost: 02 January 2012
- 2 Disambiguation link notification
- 3 Favor
- 4 The Signpost: 09 January 2012
- 5 Rick Snyder and YouTube
- 6 January 2012 Newsletter for WikiProject United States and supported projects
- 7 The Signpost: 16 January 2012
- 8 WP:AN mention
- 9 "as I have already indicated support previously."
- 10 The Signpost: 23 January 2012
- 11 Talk:Indigenous_inhabitant#Requested_move
- 12 January 2012
- 13 Mildred Seydell
- 14 Disambiguation link notification
- 15 Reply
- 16 Bolshevist Russia
- 17 The Signpost: 30 January 2012
- 18 "one blue link for dab entries"
- 19 Engel
- 20 The Signpost: 06 February 2012
- 21 MSU Interview
- 22 Disambiguation link notification
- 23 Empire disambiguation edit
- 24 North etc
- 25 Plastomer
- 26 The Signpost: 13 February 2012
- 27 Edit of killing fields reverted back
- 28 fag
- 29 The Signpost: 20 February 2012
- 30 On Your Recent Edit In Dhruv Article
- 31 Disambiguation link notification
- 32 The Signpost: 27 February 2012
The Signpost: 02 January 2012
- Interview: The Gardner interview
- News and notes: Things bubbling along as Wikimedians enjoy their holidays
- WikiProject report: Where are they now? Part III
- Featured content: Ghosts of featured content past, present, and future
- Arbitration report: New case accepted, four open cases, terms begin for new arbitrators
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.
- 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. older ≠ wiser 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
- Technological roadmap: 2011's technological achievements in review, and what 2012 may hold
- News and notes: Fundraiser 2011 ends with a bang
- WikiProject report: From Traditional to Experimental: WikiProject Jazz
- Featured content: Contentious FAC debate: a week in review
- Arbitration report: Four open cases, proposed decision in Betacommand 3
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
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.
The Signpost: 16 January 2012
- Special report: English Wikipedia to go dark on January 18
- Sister projects: What are our sisters up to now?
- News and notes: WMF on the looming SOPA blackout, Wikipedia turns 11, and Commons passes 12 million files
- WikiProject report: WikiProject Beer
- Featured content: Lecen on systemic bias in featured content
- Arbitration report: Four open cases, Betacommand case deadlocked, Muhammad images close near
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
- News and notes: SOPA blackout, Orange partnership
- WikiProject report: The Golden Horseshoe: WikiProject Toronto
- Featured content: Interview with Muhammad Mahdi Karim and the best of the week
- Arbitration report: Four open cases, proposed decision in Muhammad images, AUSC call for applications
- Technology report: Looking ahead to MediaWiki 1.19 and related issues
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)
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)
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.
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. older ≠ wiser 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
- In the news: Zambian wiki-assassins, Foundation über alles, editor engagement and the innovation plateau
- Recent research: Language analyses examine power structure and political slant; Wikipedia compared to commercial databases
- WikiProject report: Digging Up WikiProject Palaeontology
- Featured content: Featured content soaring this week
- Arbitration report: Five open cases, voting on proposed decisions in two cases
- Technology report: Why "Lua" is on everybody's lips, and when to expect MediaWiki 1.19
(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?
- 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)
The Signpost: 06 February 2012
- News and notes: The Foundation visits Tunisia, analyzes donors
- In the news: Leading scholar hails Wikipedia, historians urged to contribute while PR pros remain shunned
- Discussion report: Discussion swarms around Templates for deletion and returning editors of colourful pasts
- WikiProject report: The Eye of the Storm: WikiProject Tropical Cyclones
- Featured content: Talking architecture with MrPanyGoff
- Arbitration report: Four open cases, final decision in Muhammad images, Betacommand 3 near closure
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 firstname.lastname@example.org (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 email@example.com. I will be more than happy to speak with you.
Thanks in advance for your help. We have a lot to learn from you.
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.
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. older ≠ wiser 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)
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. older ≠ wiser 18:51, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
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. older ≠ wiser 20:25, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
The Signpost: 13 February 2012
- Special report: Fundraising proposals spark a furore among the chapters
- News and notes: Foundation launches Legal and Community Advocacy department
- WikiProject report: WikiProject Stub Sorting
- Featured content: The best of the week
- Arbitration report: Betacommand 3 closed, proposed decision in Civility enforcement, AUSC candidates announced
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.
- 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. older ≠ wiser 17:45, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
The Signpost: 20 February 2012
- Special report: The plight of the new page patrollers
- News and notes: Fundraiser row continues, new director of engineering
- Discussion report: Discussion on copyrighted files from non-US relation states
- WikiProject report: WikiProject Poland
- Featured content: The best of the week
- Arbitration report: Civility enforcement closed, proposed decision in TimidGuy, two cases remain open
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)
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.
The Signpost: 27 February 2012
- News and notes: Finance meeting fallout, Gardner recommendations forthcoming
- Recent research: Gender gap and conflict aversion; collaboration on breaking news; effects of leadership on participation; legacy of Public Policy Initiative
- Discussion report: Focus on admin conduct and editor retention
- WikiProject report: Just don't call it "sci-fi": WikiProject Science Fiction
- Arbitration report: Final decision in TimidGuy ban appeal, one case remains open
- Technology report: 1.19 deployment stress, Meta debates whether to enforce SUL