User talk:Trilobitealive

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

To misquote George Orwell, all editors are equal but some are more equal than others. In my own case, after a prolonged disagreement with one particular article squatter over whether neutral point of view should include some material from the universe of centrist opinion and not just a compromise between garden variety animal rights sympathizers and bomb throwing lunatics, I dropped out for a long time then returned to a greatly reduced scope of editing, confined to topics which don't have a great amount of dissent (or at least whose advocates do not normally burn down schools and hospitals and assault people on the streets). (See WP:EQ)

Nuvola apps edu languages.png
Fragmented conversations hurt my brain.

Work IP numbers[edit]

These are my present IP numbers at work: (talk) 18:41, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Verified. Still the IP address and I have a note on the talk page. Trilobitealive (talk) 00:05, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I edited from this IP today following a browser crash. Trilobitealive (talk) 03:33, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer[edit]

Wikipedia Reviewer.svg

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 17:31, 18 June 2010 (UTC)


Your addition of {{other people}} to George Walkers is not required or advantageous per WP:NAMB. Quale (talk) 06:29, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

It is only advantageous for readers who land on one of the pages, but it is not the right one. Trilobitealive (talk) 19:34, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
I don't think I understand how people land on the pages when they are not the right one. Searching for George Walker takes the reader to a disambiguation page, and at that point it should usually be apparent which page is desired. For example, how is George Walker (chess player) going to be confused with George Walker (vaudeville)? I do agree that it is possible that George Walker (footballer, born 1877) and George Walker (footballer, born 1909) could be confused, but if you started at the disambig page you could use the back button to return to it and try the other link if needed. Even so, I tried to avoid removing the notes in those cases. I am quite fallible, however, so if you see a case where you think I have erred you should revert my change. I did think about this a little bit when seeing the large number of hatnotes that I thought were not needed. Since sometimes (as in the case of the two footballers) the notes may be appropriate, I can see some merit in the argument that the notes should always be used for reasons of consistency and to avoid argument and effort to determine when they should be omitted and when they should be used. I'm not sure I agree with that argument, but consistency and simplicity would both be benefits. Quale (talk) 10:19, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
It is sometimes hard for people to not see all the ways that other people can get lost in searches. You stated "...if you started at the disambig page you could use the back button..." This idea of starting on the dab page and hitting the back button is the core of our disagreement. Let me explain. There are many ways a user can start out in a wrong article so there always needs to be a path back to the dab page other than the back button.
The most common problem seems to be new users who are unskilled in Wikipedia navigation, the basic problem of ambiguous names that was mentioned in WP:NAMB.
The second most common problem is that people who know the subject but not the idiosyncracities of how the article will be named take a guess as to what they are looking for. Try doing a search on this name: George Walker(priest) (I didn't just red link it because that would just send you to the place to start an article - I will come back and make the page into a redirect page after a sufficient time for you to see the sense of my illustration) and you will see that neither the correct article George Walker (soldier), the redirect page nor the dab page are listed in the first few pages of the search product. History tells us that this particular guy was a priest and politician but a soldier mostly in his own head - much of his legend comes from his own self-published book - but even so the best Wikipedia match is another guy who was a Puritan preacher.
When I went to the dab page (I'm a bit more experienced in searches than the average new user) I discovered a large number of pairs, threesomes and foursomes of George Walkers who could be easily confused in a similar manner.
There are other users who have either a browser of firewall which turns off the auto send feature of the Wikipedia search bar in the upper right hand of the screen. One of the computers I use has this feature turned off so that the I can see the search list rather than get punted directly to the most popular page listing the term.
So there are the first three ways of not being able to just press the back button. Hope this helps. Trilobitealive (talk) 16:56, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
And there are also typos. ;^) I'm prone to them and I'll bet I'm not the only user who makes them. 18:38, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
You've lost me. What typo would you make in a search that would cause you to land on George Walker (chess player) instead of George Walker (vaudeville)? When I look at George Walker trying to find a priest, I see
The whole point of disambiguation pages such as George Walker is that the reader does not have to understand how pages might be named. It's a list of all our George Walkers with bio dates and a brief description with links to follow, so there's no need to guess or search.
Also I'm not clear that anyone would search for this Walker as a priest. Surely if they did they would be disappointed in our article. It mentions that he was an Anglican priest in two words in the lead, and then there is not a single other word discussion his religious activities in the remainder of the article. His priesthood receives two words totaling fourteen letters in the entirety of the article. If he was important as a priest the article would probably say more, and there's little wonder that it isn't easy to search for this page. If you wanted to find it, why wouldn't you start by going to George Walker and looking through that list? Frankly this seems like a made up example that would never actually happen, used only to try to make an argument. Quale (talk) 02:54, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Concerning the chess player, that was one I just added without really thinking about it since I was adding the others anyway. One could argue many things about this but you are right in this particular instance.

Concerning typos, try entering these searches: Stanford University, Sanford University, Stradford University, Stamford University and Samford University and you will see a variety of ways that the terms are disambiguated. I'm not saying that any one of them is correct or adequate. Just different. Some w ill allow you directly toward your object and others won't. Or try entering a oddly spelled term in any computer which has the dreaded auto-correct function turn on.

But the point about the priest is that only on Wikipedia is his primary area of notability that of a soldier. The rest of the world looks at him as an Anglican priest who happened to dabble in politics and get caught up in the Irish wars in his late 60s and early 70s, wrote a self aggrandizing history of those wars, and curried favor with the British government. The description of him as a soldier is actually fringe. From my perspective, and as the primary object of my search (having read his history elsewhere) he was primarily an Anglican priest. So that was my search.

This is a specific instance of the generalization that people who come to Wikipedia with partial information do not have the information contained in Wikipedia. People who search this encyclopedia use search terms from information they have information obtained elsewhere. So we cannot presume to say that "people who search for X do so in Y manner and enter the system using Z search terms".

It has been pleasant talking to you. I do enjoy such things and I've learned a good bit from you about the way people think about both disambiguations and searches. I hope that you don't get the impression of me being a dick over this, since my goal, like yours, is to make a more readable encyclopedia. I'm sure that if you find an edit of mine erroneous you will revert it as you should. Trilobitealive (talk) 04:00, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Sturdy beggar (disambiguation)[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article Sturdy beggar (disambiguation) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Two redlinks and a short story by an author with no Wikipedia article - no need for a disambiguation page.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. McGeddon (talk) 11:11, 3 March 2015 (UTC)