Jump to content

User talk:Jerzy/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5→Archive 8

Coincidence

I think you are generally an excellent editor, but I have reverted your move with respect to Coincidence, since the meanings other than the general meaning are so limited. Obviously, I was very displeased that you made a move that created dozens of disambiguation links without immediately fixing those links. I have initiated a discussion of the topic at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disambiguation#Coincidence. Frankly, I think we should have some measure in place requiring the disambiguation project to approve such moves in advance, as they are often contentious. Cheers! bd2412 T 17:27, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

The following is a copy of what i posted at your talkpage.
--Jerzy•t 02:39, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
   Re Coincidence and User talk:Jerzy#Coincidence and talk:Coincidence#Split and Dab.
   I'm pretty worn out, but i think i should respond here as well, before going off-line.
   Please recall that NPA is about communications relating to the project's content vs. relating to editors themselves, and that the relationship of the content of an edit to guidelines on content is what bears on whether the content should be reverted: those decisions are about the content itself, not credit deserved or offense given. Your mention of whether "common courtesy" was observed in my decision process is a personal attack (tho i doubt an intentional one) (whether you are accurate or not in saying it was missing) bcz your being right in that claim would not help justify your reversion of the edit.
   You may also want to recall "what a tangled web we weave" even by inadvertent imprecision about others' acts: when for whatever reason you indicate my action was an (unimplemented) proposal, at best you've complicated our colleagues' comprehension of the matter, by putting me in the position of having not only to explicitly contradict you, but even to mention otherwise irrelevant details that your account implicitly contradicted.
   (There's more that could be said about when an editor should proceed, and the hierarchy of WP behavior standards, but what we've had to say is IMO already kinda too much, at least for now.)
   Thanks for your attention to this attention-starved article.
--Jerzy•t 10:36, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
I apologize for going off the handle. I wish to be clear that what I meant by "common courtesy" did not involve your decision process, but the fact that the page move left a large numer of links pointing to a disambig page, which unfortunately was at the top of this list for the day; we have tried to instill in editors a sense of responsibility for fixing such links when disambiguation pages are created, but I flatter myself too much to think that this admonition has been effectively communicated to anyone outside of the disambiguation project. Again, I apologize for my rudeness, and I do think you are one of Wikipedia's finer contributors. Cheers! bd2412 T 13:28, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
   Thanks for clarification, which supports my impression that this is no disaster. I recognize your sig as that of a steady and committed editor, and in particular, heavily a Dab contributor. A lot of my attention also goes to Dabs, but frankly i'm near the Bartleby end of the scale, and probably hobble my effectiveness here by not being more social. It is thus ignorance, and not simple rudeness, that leaves me unable to properly compliment you back.
   My first recollection of Dab editing was converting Battery from primary to "equal" Dab'n (where i note it has either stayed, or eventually relanded), and i'd have stopped editing Dabs if i had continued to take the "code of honor" as seriously as i initially tried to. My Battery-bypassing sessions didn't decrease in length fast enuf that new growth seemed likely to overtake me, but my ambition was humbled. (IIRC, the residue were completed by a colleague in a single session.) That set the stage for acknowledging a hierarchy of obligation: criminal law, civil law, Arbitration Board decision, WP policy, WP guideline, then "code of honor that you've taken an oath to uphold". (Let's see, i know there's at least one more step...[wink])
   In the current instance, i temporarily left the mere-coincidence page still sucking, and hope more facile colleagues will tackle the primary/equal decision, and de-suck it, promptly enuf that i can quickly slouch on into a bypassing-the-double-Rdrs-i-caused mode. But i'm pretty committed to leaving my honor a ways down my urgency hierarchy.
--Jerzy•t 02:39, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Tom and Jerry (announcers) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Tom and Jerry (announcers) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tom and Jerry (announcers) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:25, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Casing changes

I have not been able to locate any current Wikipedia MOS guideline on the matter, but every current style guide with which I am familiar encourages the silent change of case in quotations where grammatically called for, except for (a) as you note, in legal contexts and (b) when the source is a historical document in which many words other than proper nouns are capitalized. Obviously, neither exception applies to reviews of House.—DCGeist (talk) 22:08, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Beth Nugent

The article Beth Nugent has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, all newly created biographies of living persons must have at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. j⚛e deckertalk 03:46, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi. When you recently edited Local Management Interface, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page DEC (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) 11:57, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Jerzy. You have new messages at Dougweller's talk page.
Message added 08:49, 20 July 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Dougweller (talk) 08:49, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi. When you recently edited Cadi (Swiss region), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Canton (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) 11:02, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Prev ltr and Template:Next ltr

Template:Prev ltr and Template:Next ltr have been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the templates' entry on the Templates for discussion page. DH85868993 (talk) 10:34, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Law & Order: Special Victims Unit (season 6)

While I recognize your point about the way that particular episode is worded, I don't see how bombarding it with unreferenced/dubious tags is going to improve it. If you're not going to change itself, the best thing to do is open a discussion on it on the talk page - and maybe use tag if it's really needed, but otherwise the talk page is best. Also, keep in mind that plot summaries for episodes that have already aired do not need to be sourced, technically.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Davejohnsan (talk • contribs) 08:38, 8 September 2012‎

   I'm sorry you didn't mention you were removing my inuse tag, bcz your impatience (i.e., just over an hour from my placing it, and 16 minutes after an edit to the page that you could not reasonably think was what i had spent the hour on) didn't present me any occasion to tell you that the edit in progress would neither remove everything you objected to, nor be limited to the kind of changes you'd objected to. I can see that your ignoring the tag does not have to be construed as bad faith, so i hope you will accept my suggestion that leaving you the very small task of restoring your <10-char edit imposes a much smaller burden on you, than my harmonizing my hour's additions with your effortless rollback would on me.
   I already have thots about the significance of the "technical" dispensation from refs that you refer to, and its practical significance, but i read much more efficiently than i write, so that even you, i think, will be saved effort if take a look at the prior discussion of the notion. I assume there is some formal record of a consensus; could you share its address with me?
--Jerzy•t 10:34, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
First off, I did not use the rollback feature on your edit. I used Twinkle, which is not the same thing.
Secondly, I did not intentionally remove the inuse tag as I didn't know you had placed it there in the first place. But I am going to point out that you are not using the tag appropriately, since you have not made any major edits to the article. And no, bombarding it with maintenance tags doesn't count.
Third, I don't think you understand my point about the citation needed tags, so let me ask you this: Where exactly are you going to find a reference for a plot summary? The episode itself counts as a source. If there is something wrong with the way it is worded, then fix it yourself or continue your discussion on the talk page. (In fact, if I weren't distracted with this discussion, I could focus on the article talk page). Is there any reason you can't trim the plot summary down to basic, noncontroversial details? Davejohnsan (talk) 00:13, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
  1. I indeed erred in saying "rollback" (since i think we agree it means "revert" in the narrow sense), when i intended "revert" in the broad sense. It may be a habit i've picked from colleagues, since on reflection i realize i seldom describe anyone but myself as "reverting" and i suspect that is a (personal or community) mechanism for avoiding seeming to hint that a colleague's intention is reversion war.
    I certainly did not intend to imply you had used rollback rather than Twinkle, since all i know about Twinkle is that it is or includes some kind of front end for WP editing -- and nothing about the differences that are apparently significant in your mind.
  2. I don't think i implied anything about your intention, and discussed the matter only bcz i felt obliged to inform you that i had reverted two of your good-faith edits; perhaps i should be even more paranoid about giving offense.
    I don't often use {{inuse}}, and i'm not sure i'd previously even noted the section option. In retrospect, using the option was a dumb move: in so overwhelmingly large a largest section, it sacrifices visibility in return for a very small saving in editability of other sections. (I'm sure the availability of Twinkle reflects some consensus process, but it's too bad no one thot to include, as a feature, an interlock against unknowingly editing an inuse section!)
    I do find it uncharitable in any case to dispute a colleague's good-faith judgment about what is a major edit, and i will for now forgo addressing the meaning of "major" in this context.
    I made no mention of your first use of the verb "bombard", and perhaps i erred in that, since you repeat it. I can't see how anyone could use it without intending to imply or insinuate both destructive intent and indiscriminate application, for neither of which opinions you have offered any reason. In the absence of such reasons, IMO, it also violates AGF.
  3. OK, stop worrying about whether "[i] understand [your] point about the citation needed tags". In a discussion of policy, "technically" should mean "strictly interpreted", so i unconsciously assumed that when you said "technically" you meant that, rather than something closer to (forgive me the connotations) the guardhouse lawyer sense of "i've found a technicality that implies the rules don't mean what they sound like they do". And i formally admit that an (arguably technical) point you've mentioned, and i've avoided addressing, is applicable and needs inclusion (tho IMO it is not definitive). I've given up and done some research (that IMO was your just burden, but that's water over the dam), and i'll post a careful and well documented argument, along with some perhaps workable approaches, on the article's talk page in the next few days.
    I find your link to BOLD, piped by "fix it yourself", cryptic, since searching for that phrase on the page produced no hit. I'm not certain i've read every word of it before, but since its thrust is permissive (if perhaps with imperative second thots) and you seem to be suggesting i'm required to fix it or get lost, you'll have to make your point more explicit. I may not really have made the point since this started, but the templates' documentation makes it clear that their purpose is to call attention to a problem, so that the attention-caller can go on to other tasks. If we expected the tagging editor to fix the problem, we'd have no use for the template, get it?
    WP content usually starts with stubs, and often grows as established editors (or those pushed into their first edit by what they know and is missing or wrong in the article) add to it, even to the point when splitting the article becomes expeditious. Many TV series have pages like the one we're discussing, but with each episode's entry linking to a separate article. The best outcome is for an entry to grow to a point where it embarrasses its neighbors, and then have its content move to a new (episode) page and replaced on the season page by something useful only for telling users unsure about the title that they haven't yet found the episode they want, or reassuring them that they've indeed succeeded. (Rule of thumb: don't discard accurate content.) In contrast, limiting content on an ep, to even what is now at the "Conscience" entry, means, e.g. concealing (what is apparently the case) the fact that this episode starts (contrary to the natural conclusion from the summary) not only after the birthday party is over, and after the murder, but i think after the scapegoat (first mentioned in what i've been treating as the second of 3 or 4 'graphs) has been positively ID'd in a line up. (IMO that's prolly a good choice on a season page, at least when the ep page exists -- but not on an ep page.) For someone, say in academia, who is analyzing a director or critic, and knows that someone else has referred simply to "the purple-paper scene in Blowup", "the scene with the tiger" in Apocalypse Now (or, in its extended version, "the scene crossing the footbridge"), having even one full sentence on a scene, and some sense of the preceding and following scenes, can save hours trying to fast-forward to the scene, or help clarify which films or eps are likely to be most worth watching from start to finish.
--Jerzy•t 06:49, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
You seem to be an over-analytical person. I don't mean that in a bad way, but it's very frustrating at the moment, since I'm not in the mood to respond to everything you've nitpicked. Again, my issue here is that you are so wasting so much effort flooding the plot summary with maintenance tags (Only read the "Too many tags" section, please) when you could spend it improving it in the first place (hence WP:BOLD). If there are as many issues with the summary as you say there are, then it's way past the point where placing a tag next to every problematic sentence is an advisable option. Davejohnsan (talk) 05:15, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Also, one thing that keeps bugging me: There is no point in using the citation needed template, since every plot summary is attributed to the episode. Davejohnsan (talk) 05:24, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
   OK, perhaps this is too analytical for you, but "over-analytical" is like "overtagging" in that "over" means "too much". So you are injecting, into our discussion of WP, complaints about a personal characteristic of mine that doesn't suit you. That sounds a lot like a personal attack, and if you think it sounds that way, you may want to apologize, for the sake of the influence our public discussion has on civility among our colleagues. That's your business, bcz i'm here neither to have my ego stroked nor to police civility, and i think i'm able to do my work even with colleagues who throw in such distractions.
   You took the trouble of numbering 3 points important to you. You said (1) i had misdescribed your actions, so i admitted my error (tho its significance to you is lost on me) and provided some information i thot more substantial and thus likely to ease your apparent umbrage than "I assure you i meant no offense." You made (2) a two-edged comment about the {{inuse}} inuse tag, hinting i'd libeled you as to your intent, but seeming to insinuate you'd have been justified had you had that intent, and in doing so repeated a previous incivility. Apparently i said too little about that: while i care not whether you apologize to me, IMO you owe the rest of your colleagues an apology, or at least a non-apology, for violating civility guidelines. You (3) repeated yourself about the core matter, about which let me recount our discussion to date:
At 08:38, 8 September 2012‎, you said in part:
Also, keep in mind that plot summaries for episodes that have already aired do not need to be sourced, technically.

At 10:34, 8 September 2012, i replied in part:

I already have thots about the significance of the "technical" dispensation from refs that you refer to, and its practical significance, but i read much more efficiently than i write, so that even you, i think, will be saved effort if take a look at the prior discussion of the notion. I assume there is some formal record of a consensus; could you share its address with me?

At 00:13, 9 September 2012, perhaps you failed to read that, or to understand it was in reply to the portion of your 08:38 reproduced just above it, bcz you responded in part:

Third, I don't think you understand my point about the citation needed tags, so let me ask you this: Where exactly are you going to find a reference for a plot summary? The episode itself counts as a source....

At 06:49, 9 September 2012 i said reply

OK, stop worrying about whether "[i] understand [your] point about the citation needed tags". In a discussion of policy, "technically" should mean "strictly interpreted", so i unconsciously assumed that when you said "technically" you meant that, rather than something closer to (forgive me the connotations) the guardhouse lawyer sense of "i've found a technicality that implies the rules don't mean what they sound like they do". And i formally admit that an (arguably technical) point you've mentioned, and i've avoided addressing, is applicable and needs inclusion (tho IMO it is not definitive). I've given up and done some research (that IMO was your just burden, but that's water over the dam), and i'll post a careful and well documented argument, along with some perhaps workable approaches, on the article's talk page in the next few days.

At 05:24, 12 September 2012 you refused to respond to that point but said

Also, one thing that keeps bugging me: There is no point in using the citation needed template, since every plot summary is attributed to the episode.
   I hope the yellow box above will clarify for you my view that the question you keep insisting on an answer to requires a careful and definitive answer, which i'd probably have prepared for you by now or in the next 24, had you not written me your latest as and when you did. You've delayed it.
  If you haven't both read and understood the yellow box above, be sure to read and understand red one below:

   Contrary to your apparent understanding,

"[i do] understand [your] point about the citation needed tags"

and i thot it was clear that i think that (1) it is wrong and (2) trying to give you a simple reason for that without the appropriate research and explication would be counterproductive.

Much as you perhaps would like to believe it, it is not the case that understanding your assertion is sufficient to make me agree with it. Stop repeating the same assertion and the same question, and wait for my reply instead of trying to force to give you the reply you want.
   I reserve my right to ignore your messages as long as i see fit, and i shall be surprised if you should manage to write one that i will choose to answer before completing the definitive response that i foresaw near the beginning of this correspondence.
--Jerzy•t 10:33, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
   You've made me aware now of two project pages (tagged as essays) that you like, but i am not going to devote effort to responding to them just now, since i am busy doing your homework for you (in an area where you seem to be far more interested than i am) by consulting, citing, and quoting policy and guideline pages, which (in contrast to essays) reflect strong consensus and are binding. And the core of my effort has all along been to respond definitively to precisely that "one thing that keeps bugging" you.
   Do i need to say that the reason i'm disagreeing with you is not some kind of failure to listen? I believe i understand what you're saying, i think what you keep saying in slightly different ways is wrong, always for the same reason, and telling you that does not convince you, so please be patient while put together what i have found, in a way that should be clear to you, and that i believe will help you understand what responsible editors do about this matter.
--Jerzy•t 10:33, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
I'm really getting tired of dragging out this discussion. The reason I started this discussion in the first place was in hopes that we could reach an agreement on a simpler plot summary. Are we going to do that, or would you rather continue a discussion that ultimately will not lead anywhere? Davejohnsan (talk) 15:37, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
   Neither.
--Jerzy•t 19:41, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Then what exactly do you hope to accomplish here? Davejohnsan (talk) 19:43, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Richard Kleindienst, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page ITT (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) 10:57, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Carrie

I enjoyed your edit summary at Carrie, which made me smile. Seems you originally tagged the page for cleanup back in February. On that basis I have removed the cleanup tag. (: France3470 (talk) 02:04, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

   Hope you didn't think i was trying to be clever, since you were the one clever enuf to examine the edit history! Now you've made me smile. I think my caution was about not remembering actually seeing anyone else even fix a Dab-entry-subordinated-to-Dab entry instance -- so what did they find tagworthy?
   That aside, your mention of February reminded me that i looked at DabCu-tagged-since-Feb entries bcz the Dec ones didn't lite my fire, and Jan either was already empty or i had just emptied it. Perhaps an editor who exhibits 1 just noticeable difference more compulsiveness than my 90th- or 99th-%-tile compulsiveness would have at least glanced at the Feb edit summaries -- since i had, minutes before, implicitly known that that one must have been tagged precisely in Feb.
   Keep on smiling, colleague!
--Jerzy•t 04:22, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure I have a view either way about whether or not items should be subordinated, but I suppose on the whole I tend to retain it if it's already in place. I must have looked at most of the items in the cleanup category a dozen times. (Some just seem impossible to budge!) I've most certainly forgotten which ones I tagged. I should have another gander at the list, to see if I can't knock a few off. It would be so nice to see the list below 100, but it might take some time and some serious slogging. Thanks for your lovely reply, France3470 (talk) 05:01, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Back-story (production)

The article Back-story (production) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No good sources, not much content in this article, dated material, nothing to merge elsewhere

While all 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. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:09, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Gervasius

Hi Jerzy, that sounds like a good plan! Thanks! I have no objections. Polylerus (talk) 17:47, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Shoreline (band) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Shoreline (band) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shoreline (band) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Northamerica1000(talk) 08:20, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Dates in biographical articles

Please don't remove birth & death dates from the lead sentence of biographical articles as you did several times to Ada Lovelace. They are required by our Manual of Style. Thank you. Yworo (talk) 17:45, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Dab?

Further to your comment at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Freemasonry/ToDo#Joseph_Fort_Newton#Neither , I assume "Rdr" means redirect, but what's a "Dab"?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Svanslyck (talk • contribs) 19:29, 26 December 2012‎

   My friend, thank you for taking an interest in this matter, and for the presumably sensible contribs by you that have motivated the communications you've received on your talk page. I think, on one hand, WP:BITE does not intend to single out colleagues such as you as as "newcomers", and on the other that you should not in any case consider yourself "bitten" by the following observation:
   At point 1 of WT:WikiProject Freemasonry/ToDo#Neither, i said in part, "I converted Anti-Masonic from a Rdr to Anti-Masonry into a Dab ...". IMO a reasonable sense of proportion should have lead you to examine that page, which would show you just below that page title the text
A disambiguation page from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
which is not a sentence but should invite you to infer a sentence beginning "This page is ...". You might also, or instead, have taken note of the text between horizontal rules on that page "Anti-Masonic", just above the its Category box, which begins
This disambiguation page lists articles associated with the same title.
and in turn should have led you to explore the page that that link points to.
   In each case, you'd have reached one of a pair of project pages (ones addressed primarily to editors) about disambiguation; each of these is associated and firmly links with a project-discussion page. Of the four, each but HELP:Disambiguation features either a box near the top that notes the existence of a page with "Disambiguation" as its base title and can be reached via a Rdr whose name includes "DAB". The two talk pages each index, in their tables of contents, a discussion whose title includes the use of "Dab" or "dab" as an abbreviation for "disambiguation".
   Finally, if your faith in colleagues' rational grasp of the needs for anticipating needs like the one you were experiencing were lower than your faith in your knowledge of non-WP-specific abbreviations, you'd be well advised to use automated reference materials: type "dab" or "DAB" into a search-box; here are two useful ones: A B
   As i say, please don't feel bitten: my tirade just above is not intended to alienate you, but to provide a memorable lesson on the value that informed self-reliance can have, especially in WP work. Occasionally i just ignore a request appearing on my talk page, but i figured the effort to respond in a way likely to stick in your memory was worthwhile.
   Calm Seas; Prosperous Voyage.
--Jerzy•t 04:12, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for your good faith response to my question. I should point out, however, that you could have simply written "redirects" and "disambiguation pages" in the original comment, making this entire conversation unnecessary.
kcylsnavS{screechharrass} 15:38, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
   Yeah. Now we're getting to the point where lack of shared assumptions becomes evident. I speculate that you assume either
  1. that i prioritize
    minimizing the effort that low-experience editors must invest to become fluent readers of our talk pages above
    maximizing the efficiency of talk-page communication among fluent editors, or
  2. that i use a tool that automatically expands, say, "^Ndab" to "disambiguation page and "^Vdab" to "disambiguate".
But neither of those is true.
   Linus's Law probably only works when the project is relaxed enuf to let contributors set their own priorities. Comparison of this search with another one that you'll be able to construct for yourself suggests that about 80% of talk contributions re Dabs may come from those who fulfill one or both of those assumptions, but a substantial minority come from those who do not. I'm not certain that a wider expectation like yours would inhibit my contributions; still, i've not, in nearly 10 years as an admin, previously seen anyone suggest that any value of the orientation you advocate is worthy of discussion, let alone the (however carefully padded) noodge you've just offered to me. So thanks for speaking up, but i'm interested only bcz i assume my failure to respond would be even more confusing for you.
--Jerzy•t 07:43, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
Whatever.
kcylsnavS{screechharrass} 21:58, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Jacob (given name)

The article Jacob (given name) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

This name is too frequently encountered for a list to be viable in Wikipedia. The disambiguation page lists people known by this name alone, and that should be sufficient.

While all 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. – Fayenatic London 21:29, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

I saw your note about repairing the nomination, but did not understand it. I have moved the page to List of people named Jacob for clarity. – Fayenatic London 18:47, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Noted, tnx.
--Jerzy•t 19:05, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of List of people named Jacob for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of people named Jacob is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people named Jacob until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. – Fayenatic London 14:40, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Template:ToC for LoPbN direct links has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:04, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Orion Nebula

Greetings,

Following your post on my talk page, first I want to thank you for the compliment on my edit to the Orion Nebula talk page. I did not see it as so groundbreaking, if I might say so.

However, I have to say that I do not understand exactly what you want from me. I read the link you gave me about "anchor other than an explicit section title," but I have to say I do not get it. What do you want to do exactly? The way I see it, you want to edit the Orion Nebula page by adding a paragraph saying that we count time past as if neglecting distances, and that is fine with me. The paragraph you have written on my talk page is good… except for the "citation needed" parts of course! ;-)

While I am indeed a member of a few WikiProjects, I do not participate actively in any of them, and I even have stopped looking at the updates since… hmm… too long ago to mention! Maybe someone else would be better than me for sparking interest there (or anywhere else for that matter). I simply have too many things to do in my (rare) free time: I translate texts to French for the University of Arizona site on the HiRISE experiment on Mars; I do some translations for Southern Stars (makers of SkySafari etc.); I do the graphic design for a seasonal newsletter for the Fédération des astronomes amateurs du Québec (Québec amateur astronomers federation); I also am Secretary of the board of that federation; and finally, I am "The Guy in Charge" for a free French-language PDF magazine about astronomy, called Astronomie-Québec [1]. Sorry, but no more time for Wikipedia! :-(

I wish you find the help you look for, and remain available for advise if needed.

Best regards,

CielProfond (talk) 00:38, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Paulo Freire (astronomer), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Portuguese (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) 11:12, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Jonathon Wendell

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Jonathon Wendell requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. Revolution1221 (talk · email · contributions) 01:21, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

The Edwards brothers, Fisher, and Hogben

Re The Edwards brothers, Fisher, and Hogben

Hi,

Do you mind me prodding this? I can't see that there is anything here that can't be covered in A.W.F. Edwards and John H. Edwards respectively, and I can't really find sources covering both of them. So just a structure thing, mostly. Barney the barney barney (talk) 19:43, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

   I oppose any such deletion. (Tho i try to maintain equanimity about colleagues' tagging!)
   The article cites a presumablyRS: The Independent, and one RS suffices in the absence of controversy abt what is true. (We indeed count sources in one form of popularity contest, but that is to determine whether a different topic has a stronger claim on a title, not whether a name for a topic should be eliminated.)
   In fact, where (as here) the Web has been copying a title with a meaningful title for many months, you should be asking how to reuse that title as a RDR or soft redirect if you don't think a given collection of facts should be kept together.
   I'd be glad to try to discuss whatever specifics of "structure" (perhaps your sense of the term is which chunks of info will productively be adjacent, or close within a tree structure?) you are concerned about.
--Jerzy•t 02:55, 11 May 2013 (UTC)


Well I'm not sure it's going to survive AFD. With regards to structure, a redirect to where though, A.W.F. Edwards? John H. Edwards? Their father Harold C. Edwards? I'm not sure a very WP:OBSCURE article is going to be linked from eslewhere on the web, and as I've said all of the content should really be written in both A.W.F. Edwards and John H. Edwards and possibly Harold C. Edwards as well. Barney the barney barney (talk) 10:40, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
   OK, i accidentally threw dust in your eyes by mentioning soft redirects -- a term i now see i've been misusing once every few years, bcz i never checked out my guess about its meaning! And you're right that conversion to an internal Rdr to a substantial article is no help.
   I agree that the (sparse) content (or plausible expansions) can be accommodated elsewhere (in the four bios, with some duplication); the issue i was raising was not that, but that the title has by now been duplicated in many places: while i dunno why Google served up /The_Scientific_Papers_of_Francis_Crick_A_Footnote_on_Custodial_History "The Scientific Papers of Francis Crick A Footnote on Custodial History" on the first page, i'd risk real money that hundreds if not thousands of the hits i got from searching Google for "Edwards brothers, Fisher, and Hogben" in fact derive from WP. Many of the copies will mention WP, and even on seeing one that violates our copyleft rights by neglecting to, many users will conjecture (based on various peculiarities) that WP does have an article (and perhaps in a corrected, improved, illustrated, and/or footnoted version); we can avoid disappointing those who come from such users' sites and request that page title, and we prefer to.
   Putting a Dab at the trivial article's title would be silly at best and confusing at worst, but neither i nor (IMO) the MoS would be offended by a SIA, with content like this:
Among British zoologists of the twentieth century, two brothers named Edwards were each a noted protege of Fisher or of Hogben.

The proteges:

The mentors:

   I built up the message at the bottom of that box by stripping markup out of the {{SIA}} template, to avoid SIA boilerplate that doesn't apply very well. (If implemented, this approach would call for working out what Category the page belongs in; i haven't bothered with that yet.) If you like this approach of downgrading the page from pretensions to the substantiality of typical articles, i'll see it thru; if we don't come the a mutually satisfactory approach, i ask that you delay AfD long enuf that i can implement the improvements your arguments suggest to me, lest colleague's time be wasted in a premature deln process.
--Jerzy•t 03:51, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Mary Madeline for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Mary Madeline is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mary Madeline until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:56, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Pg-ovw2

Template:Pg-ovw2 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Magioladitis (talk) 22:30, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Pg-ovw

Template:Pg-ovw has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Magioladitis (talk) 22:30, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Radio shows based on Nero Wolfe, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page ABC (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) 11:06, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Izumo

You wrote    Thank you for trying to improve the Dab page Izumo. I am reverting your edits without discussing your summary comments individually, bcz you repeatedly changed entries with a blue link to add additional blue links in violation of the first few paragraphs of MOS:DABENTRY, and a number of your comments suggest that in general you were editing under the mistaken notion that a Dab is just a boring multitopic article.
   As WP:DAB and MOS:DAB make clear in great detail, a Dab is not an article at all, but merely a navigational device with the sole purpose of minimizing the frustration of users who have arrived at a page that is not an article on their topic of interest, because their reasonable hope about the title of the article covering that topic is either

  1. primarily a title for another topic's article (e.g. typing "Hitler" in seeking the film of that name), or
  2. a title for which there is no single article that would be on the desired topic, more than say 45% of the time that users try that title (as with "Izumo").

WP articles give information on their respective topics (and usually the more the better, to such an extent that we'll subdivide the topic into several articles when the amount of info at one page becomes ungainly). A dab "enriched" with any unnecessary information is like a red hexagonal sign reading "If you are in a vehicle, you are legally, morally, and for your own safety hereby required to bring your vehicle to a halt before any part of it reaches the intersection close beyond this sign, and.... If you are not in a vehicle ...."
   I will not at all be surprised if, after due attention to the official guidelines i've mentioned, you have some good ideas for improving this Dab, but for the moment you are too far off for me to efficiently separate such wheat from the chaff. If you find difficulty seeing how the guidelines apply to Izumo or other Dabs, WT:MOSDAB is a good place to get feedback from old hands. If you have a specific "why not do X with Izumo" question, don't rule our asking me at my user-talk page. (And i'll also watch your talk page for a week or so in case you respond to my message immediately following in this same section; it's usually good to keep a 2-way discussion in one place.)
   Thanks for reading this long comment, and thank you for showing interest in WP editing.
--Jerzy•t 07:14, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

My response

I will likely revert some of your edits - your mass deletion of all the material I added (after you removed it without explanation) is rather excessive, at least in my opinion. As for your comments about how you think DAB pages are supposed to look, I will simply point out that similar DAB pages, such as Akagi, Church, System, Dreadnought for example, contain far more detail than what you deem to be acceptable (and have been in this configuration for quite some time). If you are correct in your view, than numerous DAB pages in Wikipedia will require a serious overhaul. For the time being, however, I am willing to meet you part of the way - I will agree to remove some of the material I added (the long list of locations is probably unnecessary and I will avoid adding additional links). Hopefully, we can come to a compromise.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 22:44, 8 August 2013 (UTC))
   The Dab guidelines mean what they say, and the fact most Dab pages are neglected (American and Indian having gotten so much more discussion than typical Dabs should clarify for you how un-sexy the average Dab is) should simply clarify for you why so much effort has been invested in establishing policies, guidelines, and essays instead of giving any respect to "it's done this way all over the place. WP is an encyclopedia, not a soccer fan-club.
   I'm glad of your mentioning a "long list of locations [that you assume are] probably unnecessary"; my blanket reversion was not a rejection of everything you did, but as i tried to say, a matter of the presumably low wheat-to-chaff ratio. You did so much that it was clearly non-compliant that i didn't look for added entries, and i will make a point of finding them, and comment on what makes you good additions different from any bad ones. Your latest revisions command my first attention, but i'll certainly get around to looking at those four counter-examples you mention; barring any expression of boredom or annoyance from you, i'll probably comment to you on anything i do on them.
   I note your sense that my removing "all the material [you] added ... without explanation" was extreme. I'll mention that the first thing i did after "fixing" a section i noticed was not in the format i thot i'd applied, and then noticing that there'd been an intermediate edit, was to say "Oh, no, did i leave all my talk-page entries, explaining removals & preserving their entries for possible future entries, in an edit window and never save them to the talk page?" I went straight there, and found i'd saved two edits of talk before saving the Dab page, but that you'd edited the article extensively without responding to the pre-existing talk either before or after. (I certainly did not explain everything i did in the detail that i addressed the entry-removals, nor include "see talk page" in my summary, but IMO AGF requires construing "cleanup" as "cleaned up in accord with established standards" (rather than "cleaned up bcz WP:IDL"). (I didn't add "see talk page", i think, bcz what was there was less explanation than it was preservation of potentially Dab-useful info.) I suggest to you that you are seeking gentler handling for your standards-blind and consultation-free efforts than you are even now according to my compliant & collaboration-attentive contrib.
   There are indeed times when compromise is constructive in our editing work: when reaching agreement turns out to be impracticable. Your impatience to edit this page on a quid pro quo basis could be a sign that consensus will indeed be hard to reach. But your latest round of changes are a basis for further exploring a common understanding of what benefits the project. I'm proceeding with my efforts to see how the page can be improved -- as i already remarked, entries i ignored but now understand you had added, are likely to be beneficial to users (and proposing omission of material that i ignored among a sea of apparent bathwater does not fall under that heading.
   My next step (greatly aided by what sounds like your contribution of complying with the one-blue-link-per-entry standard) will be studying your (and DAJF's) new revision.
  Thanks.
--Jerzy•t 02:32, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
I realize I may have come off as being overly-defensive. I was just surprised by your approach to the DAB pages (again, because a lot of Wikipedia's DAB pages contain details exceeding what you have suggested is appropriate and nobody seems to mind).  (Hyperionsteel (talk) 03:39, 9 August 2013 (UTC))
   Well, truth to tell, it takes a certain oddness to pay Dabs as much attention as they deserve, but we gnomes have thot about it pretty hard over the years, and a lot of work (little of it from me) has gone into the Dab-guidelines pages. And it's a little like watching a skyscraper go up, girder by girder, with very few observers paying attention to the fact that the girders can't go up without the rivets.
   The need for "See also" sections like the one you eliminated is discussed at WP:PTM. Implicitly, such Dab sections prioritize the jobs that a Dab can do: First priority is users who want to get to an article for which "Izumo" (in the case at hand) might have been the title (if it isn't or weren't being used as the title for a different topic's title or the Dab); they are first priority bcz we can serve them with almost no intervening distractions, by listing all such titles before any others.
   Lower priority - i.e., listing under "See also" - goes to articles whose topics can be efficiently specified by phrases that include the Dab page's title, but would not ever have that title (even if no topic had an article that for which the Dab page's title made a good name). Examples include Izumo-taisha (which presumably would never be called "Izumo" except in discussions limited to a choice among shrines), and Izumo-class helicopter destroyer (which presumably would never be called "Izumo" -- rather than "Izumo class" -- except in discussions limited to naval-ship classes). It does no harm to list these under "See also" at the bottom of the Izumo Dab, bcz no one looking for an article for which Izumo could be a good article title will waste time looking at them until they've already looked at and ruled out the earlier titles (and become desperate); it may do some good to include them for the benefit of those who know their topic is called something involving "Izumo", and are down to their last resort in searching for a relevant article.
   Altho "Izumo" is similarly ill-suited to be a title for an article on the work Kunisaki Izumo no Jijō, closer examination makes it, IMO, reasonable for a piped-link entry to one section of that article: Kunisaki Izumo no Jijō#Main characters begins with info specific to Izuko. The principle of least astonishment IMO calls for the link to alert the user about which page and section the link points to: Izumo Kunisaki, title character of comic Kunisaki Izumo no Jijō, tho i'm not sure there's any guideline specific to these situations. I had the article-link under See also, but IMO such a piped secn lk to the character belongs above that final section.
--Jerzy•t 07:46, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Places in Virginia with names involving "Dale", you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dale (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) 11:03, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Your special Talkback thing

Please look at the foot of this and see the amusement it caused. Fiddle Faddle 14:18, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

   It's amusing too that you're the first to point it out to me, and that i had spent a while, again, before saving, trying to tease out where the problem lies. It's probably time to stop being so stubborn about whatever it was that i found lacking when i hacked it together, and shop the current selection of formally distributed variants.
   With a smile and a blush, i am
Jerzy•t 04:30, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
It ought to be something simple, like an unclosed div tag. But where? Fiddle Faddle 07:31, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Places in West Virginia with names involving "Dale" for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Places in West Virginia with names involving "Dale" is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Places in West Virginia with names involving "Dale" until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Fiddle Faddle 06:45, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jerzy/Archive_3&oldid=1088342876"