User talk:Bkonrad/Archive 98

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Bkonrad. 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.

Please if you are going to make edits like this then at least have the decency to replace the information you are deleting. It seems rather unnecessary to make me go back and repeat an edit. Mujinga (talk) 13:13, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

What? older ≠ wiser 13:25, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

With regret, you regularly continue to erase certain elements of the fine editorial work of your colleagues on the disambiguation pages of WP. The elements of the Mitchinamecus page were useful to readers; with the advancement of writing in geography, these elements will inevitably have to come back. This erased content didn't hurt anyone. It is a citizen's duty to respect the good established rules. It is also a duty to oppose bad rules, especially the rule of non display (English project) on the disambiguation pages of elements that do not already have an article on WP. Again, the common sense should prevail in the best interest of users. Veillg1 02:30, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

With regret, you regularly continue to create monstrosities posing as disambiguation pages that no member of the disambiguation project would recognize as remotely compliant with WP:MOSDAB. If you feel the need to oppose the rules, then make your case and gain consensus rather than continue to act with idiosyncratic disregard of the guidelines to produce pages that are not only unhelpful for readers but actually a hindrance. older ≠ wiser 01:31, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Good day. IP 119.93.40.241 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has been using profanity in edit summaries and is being uncivil, e.g. 1, 2, 3, 4. This is already reported at WP:ANI.

IP, in return, reported a user for allegedly edit warring: WP:AN3

A quick help would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks!

—Hiwilms (talk) 18:09, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Re: edits to Daniel (disambiguation). Since Daniel is primarily a given name or a surname, it seems appropriate to place those links at the beginning of the disambiguation page. If this is not a standard format, then perhaps the standard format should be reviewed. --Bejnar (talk) 04:31, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Having received no response, I'll make a second attempt in a slightly different format, one that you might find more acceptable.  --Bejnar (talk) 02:55, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

• Okay, that works. --Bejnar (talk) 19:27, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Hello! You may have a good reason to revert my edits, but you haven't supplied any in your annotations so they've been reverted. Please supply a good reason why the edits should be reverted, otherwise it looks like edit warring. Leitmotiv (talk) 18:27, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

If it's not obvious to you why links to pages in Draft: space are not allowed on disambiguation pages, perhaps you need to go back to editorial skills 101. older ≠ wiser 18:53, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Did you have a direct response to my comments, because I see none here. Addressing your signature, do you think it would be prudent, if not wise, to annotate, even if just a little bit, so we could avoid unnecessary reverts, which in turns ends up wasting you and I a bunch of time? Otherwise we end up in cul-de-sac conversations like this one. Also, commenting on editorial skills would suggest that no one is allowed to edit, especially anonymous IPs, but they can. Such comments are non-sequiturs and do not relieve you of the responsibility to annotate your edits. Leitmotiv (talk) 19:05, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Hello! Your obstinacy in erasing the good work of your colleagues in the disambiguation pages impedes the advancement of Wikipedia. You blindly apply your own strict interpretation of the rule. Unfortunately for you and your colleagues, this publishing war wastes everyone's time. In the end, the article "Sutton River" was published, but the names of rivers whose article is not yet created are missing. You are invited to apply your common sense judgment, as all rivers in the country will eventually have an article. (talk) 3:15, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

When the articles are written, they can be added to the disambiguation page. How hard is that? Disambiguation pages are not meant to be comprehensive lists of everything that might ever have had that name. Your careless editing and disregard for naming conventions, disambiguation guidelines (as well as many other editing guidelines) leave tedious work for other editors to clean up the terrible messes you leave behind. older ≠ wiser 02:43, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Precious

Five years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:13, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by UnofficialWikieditor20 (talk • contribs) 18:42, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

I've had Black Hand watchlisted for couple of years now, and I just wanted to let you know that your work in removing stuff not mentioned in the linked article is appreciated. Actually, I was one of the people whose stuff you removed a while back, and your example taught me a lot about inclusion criteria in general (via follow-up reading when trying to learn why you did what you did), which motivated learning more about Wikipedia and is sort of one of the things that eventually motivated me to get an account.

So I just wanted to say - thank you for the work you do. Gimubrc (talk) 15:15, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi :)
Please check and answer Talk:Fluffy#Wiktionary link inclusion problems :)
Many thanks :)
Have a nice day :)
86.129.117.3 (talk) 23:21, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi there
I see you have reverted my edit on the cape class page. This reversion seems unconstructive. Can you please explain why. The cape-class patrol boat is currently a class of boats operated by the ABF, RAN and TTCG. So I simplified instead of adding all operaters.
Thanks for your time
Life200BC (talk) 10:25, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

@Life200BC: The main reason was that there should only be one blue link per entry for a disambiguation entry. The additional link to Austal is irrelevant for disambiguation of the term "cape". Further, the article on Cape-class patrol boat only mentions the RAN and even Austal#Cape-class patrol boats only mentions RAN. If the same patrol boat is operated by navies in other countries AND are known as Cape-class in those navies, then details with reliable sources should be added into the articles. older ≠ wiser 12:31, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi, I see you reverted my edit to the Deal dab page. My understanding (confirmed with the Oxford Dictionary of English) is that 'deal' refers to any cheap softwood, mainly pine (not just Scots pine) and fir. Directing the user to Scots pine seems confusing to me. Do you have a source for the usage being mainly Scots pine? --D Anthony Patriarche, BSc (talk) 07:52, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

@D A Patriarche: I had accidentally hit return while writing my edit summary. I meant to say that a disambiguation entry should link to just one article and the article should have verifiable content supporting the claimed usage. The links you added made no mention at all of the term "deal" in the sense described. That usage is mentioned in the Scots pine article. Perhaps the usage could be described more clearly in some other article or perhaps the entry on the disambiguation page could be further clarified that Scots pine is merely one example of a common source of deal -- but given the current content, the link to Scots pine seems better than linking either to softwood or even worse to UK. older ≠ wiser 12:24, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. I was tempted to create an article Deal (softwood), but couldn't find many sources for content ("deal" is awkward to search on due to its other meanings), and of course "Wikipedia is not a dictionary". No big deal ;-) Let it stand for now until a timber historian comes along!--D Anthony Patriarche, BSc (talk) 17:58, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello. I see that you just reverted edits by 223.24.165.161 which inserted ]. I did the same earlier for a newly registered editor. Both have the Android app edit tag. Could this be an app bug? Both have edited Language (disambiguation). Certes (talk) 23:48, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi Bkonrad, I see that you reverted the definition I added on the Second chance DAB page without an explanation. To me, that page needs it, as per WP:DABDIC: "A short description of the common general meaning of a word can be appropriate for helping the reader determine context". Not having created a Wiktionary entry before and not having time for a long diversion, I thought it better to have something rather than nothing. Why remove something that is potentially useful? Most of the links refer to this meaning, and quite likely not explained in each article. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 12:32, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

References never belong on disambiguation pages. It might be possible to craft a neutral generic definition for the term, but I'm not sure the description you added fits the bill. older ≠ wiser 12:42, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. I'll have another look at it tomorrow, if I remember. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 12:54, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Regarding the links to the page "Sutton River" on the English Wikipedia project are reluctantly directed to "Sutton River (disambiguation)". This page does not exist because it is redirected to "Sutton River". Thus the link in the articles "Sutton River" to "Sutton River (disambiguation)" is inappropriate. There is therefore no point in erasing the good work of your colleagues in this regard.(talk) 2:20, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

I realize you are either unwilling or incapable of following (or perhaps even comprehending) editing guidelines, but please have a look at WP:INTDAB: the community has adopted the procedure of rerouting all intentional disambiguation links in mainspace through "Foo (disambiguation)" redirects. older ≠ wiser 01:25, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi, I just wanted to let you know that I had to revert your edit to Lady A, as your intention to restore it to the status quo was what I had already done. Your reversion actually acted against such, as the revision history will show--BaseFree (talk) 22:53, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

I think it's bad form to depopulate a category like that. Since category depopulation is de facto deletion (because a depopulated category can be speedy deleted), if you had a problem with the concept of the category, you should have instead nominated it for deletion rather than depopulating it. And I don't really understand why you have a problem with the category, because it makes intuitive sense: you take all disambiguation pages of the pages of the form " book" and you put them in the same category. pbp 03:56, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

I think it's bad form to create poorly defined categories. The category is a subcategory of category:books which places it within article space and as such is not appropriate to use for disambiguation pages. See WP:DBC. I don't care whether this ill-defined category is deleted. If you want to populate it with articles about color books (such as Mao's little red book), that would be okay with me (It'd be rather silly, but I've given up on the possibility of categorization on Wikipedia not being silly). But disambiguation pages don't belong in such a category.

Again, if you believe that, the correct course is to nominate the category for deletion or discussion. If you're going to keep de-populating the category, I am going to keep undoing you. pbp 17:47, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

@Purplebackpack89: If you keep adding article categories to disambiguation pages, I will continue to remove them. I care not a bit whether the category itself exists -- only that it is not improperly populated. older ≠ wiser 17:56, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

May I ask what you reverted my edit here? I was looking for the organisation, it took me a while to find that wikipedia does not have an article about it, hence my edit, Huldra (talk) 21:56, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

External inks never go on disambiguation pages. Disambiguation pages are not an internet directory. older ≠ wiser 22:28, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Ok, then I have added it, without the offending link (the no-link policy seems like a pretty silly policy, IMO), Huldra (talk) 23:14, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, but disambiguation entries must have a blue link to article supporting the usage. Please see WP:disambiguation and WP:MOSDAB for details or WP:DDD for an abbreviated summary. older ≠ wiser 23:52, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello- cam I ask, where is the rule for disambg pages that you mention here: ? Is there a guidelines page for disambig pages that says this? Geographyinitiative (talk) 20:16, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

@Geographyinitiative: MOS:DABOTHERLANG: Avoid adding foreign words or phrases that are merely translations of an English term. older ≠ wiser 20:34, 29 June 2020 (UTC)