User talk:Jarble/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Disambiguation link notification for December 6

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Bridge piercing (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Rejection

Growth Fetish (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Growth

Huma bird (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Iranian mythology

National Forest Tapajós (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Aveiro

Resource (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Benefit

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:28, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Decency & morality

Hi Jarble,

I noticed you tagged Decency for a possible merge into morality. I thought I'd check with you here before talking it to the talk page. I'm not sure what the rationale behind this merge proposal is. What did you think the two articles had in common? I can't see any relation at all between the two—decency is a topic in sociology and morality is a topic in philosophy or religion. If you want to pursue this though we should discuss it on the talk page of one of the articles; I just wanted to check it wasn't a mistake. Thanks! —Noiratsi (talk) 09:54, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 20

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Abscess (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Cavity

Verizon FiOS (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Coverage

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:31, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

December 2012

Hello, I'm Glenn L. I removed an edit that you recently made to Saul that seemed link right back to "Saul."so was redundant. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Glenn L (talk) 04:25, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Petrarch/Plutarch

This is really very old, but I'd like to ask you. On 7 November 2011, you added to Petrarch: "Not to be confused with Plutarch" and to Plutarch: "Not to be confused with Petrarch". And the question is, why did you do that?--94.65.29.101 (talk) 02:24, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

It's because the names could easily be confused, and the illustrations of Petrarch and Plutarch also look similar on each page. Jarble (talk) 02:29, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

In case you didn't notice, I took the liberty of removing them, and I beg you not to put them back again without a conversation, as the relevance is not immediately apparent to everyone. Thank you!--94.65.29.101 (talk) 02:33, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

The "distinguish" template isn't supposed to point out relevant articles - it's supposed to be used to identify similar-sounding names that could easily be confused. The names "Petrarch" and "Plutarch" could easily be confused by anyone who was unfamiliar with either of these people. Jarble (talk) 02:37, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

No, when I said "relevance", I didn't mean the relevance between the articles, but the relevance of the template.--94.65.29.101 (talk) 02:47, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 29

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Kemono, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Yuri (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) 11:26, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 5

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Asynchronous I/O (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Transmission

Ayudhapurusha (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Aspect

Carsharing (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Software package

Chaturmurthi (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Aspect

Dashavatara Temple, Deogarh (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Aspect

Lakshmana Temple, Khajuraho India (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Aspect

Mahavishnu (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Aspect

Sacramento River (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Watershed

Sodium fluoroacetate (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Aerobic

Vishnu sahasranama (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Aspect

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:11, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 12

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Divide and conquer algorithm (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Base case

Kunar Province (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to N2KL

Matryoshka doll (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Babushka

Self-management (computer science) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Component

Western canon (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Canon

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:43, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 19

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Alveolar osteitis (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Self-limiting

Colonialism (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Robert Young

Form letter (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Template

Pika (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to O. princeps

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:31, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 26

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Activities of daily living (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Grooming

Nuremberg Chronicle (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Gulden

Paper clip (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Cotter pin

Vowel harmony (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Segment

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:33, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 7

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Key field, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Field (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) 11:39, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 14

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Nautilus (file manager) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to UX

Zimbabwe (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to ICT

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:55, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Hatnotes

Your use of {{distinguish}} to point users to anal retentiveness does not seem to follow the correct use of the template. None of the pages where you added this has a title that sounds remotely similar. Please let me know if I've misunderstood. JFW | T@lk 23:03, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

The titles don't sound similar, but the usage of the template does not need to be restricted to homonyms: for example, Commonwealth of Nations could be easily confused with Commonwealth of Independent States, even though these two phrases are pronounced differently. Jarble (talk) 00:20, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 21

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Internet of Things, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Object (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) 10:55, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 28

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Brucellosis (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Sexual contact

Clobbering (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Register

G factor (psychometrics) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Factors

IFTTT (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Service

Knucklebones (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Hock

Widmanstätten pattern (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Phase

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:36, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 8

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

BIOS (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Interface

Firefox OS (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Integrate

List of Microsoft Windows components (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Component

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:00, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Overzealous disambiguation

Please be more careful in your disambiguation work. You are creating way too many "see also"'s and links that are either not helpful to the reader or plain misleading by linking vaguely related subjects. A See also section or hatnote should only be used when it is quite obvious that a reader might be looking for a different topic of the same name, not when two topics are kinda sorta related. I just reverted you here, and I had to revert your edits multiple times in the past due to overlinking and adding too many/unrelated see also links. Please be more conservative with your editing. --Conti|✉ 11:55, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

I occasionally use the redirects here template to prevent similar-sounding phrases (and page titles) from being confused. I often use the "Redirects here" and "About" templates for page titles that could potentially be confusing, even when those page titles are not homophones or homonyms. I'm not sure if there's a specific Wikipedia policy against using the "redirects here" template for page titles that are not homophones, though. Is the use of "see also" or "redirects here" templates specifically disallowed by Wikipedia for any of the reasons you mentioned here? Jarble (talk) 18:00, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Also, I think it's unlikely that the use of "redirect-distinguish" templates would be considered misleading. This template is specifically intended to distinguish page titles with similar names, without implying any relevance between the two topics. I have used disambiguation hatnotes to distinguish pet and petting, which can have different meanings in different contexts. Jarble (talk) 18:03, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

This is not about what exactly the rules say, this is about common sense: No one is going to type "Animal porn" into Wikipedia while looking for an article about furries. In addition, we do not have an article on "furry porn" either, so you direct readers to a subsection of an entirely unrelated article that begins with the sentence "According to four different surveys, 14–25% of the fandom members report homosexuality, 37–52% bisexuality, 28–51% heterosexuality, and 3–8% other forms of alternative sexual relationships." Now, is that the kind of information anyone who would ever enter "Animal porn" into the Wikipedia search would be looking for? Granted, whoever enters that term into the search box is probably not going to find whatever he's looking for anyhow, but: The answer is a very clear no, and as such, the redirect notice simply makes no sense. In general, please read Wikipedia:Hatnote for some examples and rough guidelines.

I have reverted edits of yours multiple times in the past for similar reasons. Please be more careful when adding links and hatnotes and the like. Stop for a second and think if those liks would actually be useful for the reader who is searching or clicking on a particular term. If the user ends up in a completely different topic, don't link it. --Conti|✉ 00:51, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

unreferenced section

Please stop adding {{unreferenced section}} tags. They are very unhelpful (at least in the sections you placed them). —Ruud 22:35, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

I have only placed these tags in lengthy sections that are actually unreferenced - why are they considered unhelpful? Jarble (talk) 23:08, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Also, I noticed that you removed the disambiguation tags from a page in [this edit here]. Why did you decide to remove these tags, instead of disambiguating the ambiguous links? Jarble (talk) 23:10, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

I was really just trying to identify sections of articles that had no references - I don't really understand why this isn't considered helpful. Jarble (talk) 23:14, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

1) Most articles already had an banner saying the referencing of the whole article should be improved, there's no need to duplicate that for each section 2) You added the banner to multiple sections of each page. {{unreferenced section}} should be used if there is a single section that has noticeably worse referencing than the rest of the article. If there's more than one, one banner at the top will suffice (see WP:TAGBOMB). 3) Some of the sections only contained source code. The problem here probably isn't in the fact that the code is unreferenced but in that it's there in the first place (see MOS:CODE). 4) {{unreferenced section}} is terribly unspecific and often added by people who haven't actually read the article, but merely note a lack of footnotes. It's better to attach {{citation needed}} to specific sentences you think should require additional referencing. —Ruud 14:05, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

WP:OVERLINKING yet again

Jarble, when I reverted you here with a very clear explanation about why, I should not have had to revert you here. But at least the links were placed within a quote of a reference that second time, whether you realize it or not. I don't understand what it is that you don't understand about the WP:OVERLINKING guideline. I and others have had to repeatedly revert your overlinking and have repeatedly advised you not to overlink (for example, in the #Overzealous disambiguation section above, one such editor, as you know, mentions repeatedly reverting your overlinking), and yet you continue to do it. You want to know what WP:OVERLINKING is. The WP:OVERLINKING section explains what it is. For example, linking to the Sexual stimulation article and then linking to penile stimulation can be overlinking/needless linking since the penile stimulation link takes people back to the Sexual stimulation article. Usually, the Sexual stimulation link will be all that is needed in such a case. WP:OVERLINKING notes that repeating links may be appropriate under certain circumstances, which makes the repeated links not necessarily overlinking. But repeating links are not appropriate in the instances that I have reverted you on. Linking to redirects side-by-side, or very close to each other in another way, when those redirects take the reader to the same article, for example? That is WP:OVERLINKING. Flyer22 (talk) 14:28, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

The circular links that I created were completely unintentional - I wouldn't have created them if I had realized that they would link back to the same page. Jarble (talk) 01:23, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

At the time when I made these edits, I actually didn't realize that I was creating links to a page that was already linked. Some redirects to the same page have different names, and that makes it difficult to tell whether the two redirects actually link to the same page. I know that the creation of multiple links to the same page on one article is discouraged, but it's not always easy to tell how many links there are on one page to another specific page - I usually don't count every single link to a specific article on before adding a new link, since this would be very tedious. Jarble (talk) 01:27, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Also, to prevent problems like this in the future, I think a Wikipedia bot should be created to automatically remove circular links (which tend to be distracting and misleading at times). Jarble (talk) 01:26, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Also, I wasn't aware that making unintentional duplicate links was considered a form of vandalism, and I'm a bit surprised by the harsh criticism that I've received for these relatively insignificant mistakes. Can users really be banned from Wikipedia for making minor stylistic errors such as these? Jarble (talk) 01:31, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Jarble, I don't mean to come off harsh about any of this or to make you feel unwanted on Wikipedia, if I have. I don't believe that's the intention of most of the other editors above who have criticized some of your editing either. My intention is to be stern on this matter, and here's why: The reason that the criticism has been or has seemed harsh at times, from most of the people who have commented on your talk page about these things, is because we have had to revert you on these matters repeatedly even though we've pointed you to the guidelines or other behavioral pages (once or more than once) that we are abiding by. You sometimes create redirects that aren't needed, and that is made worse when you add that redirect to an article where it's already linked under its primary name (more so how you add the redirect). You sometimes add disambiguation hatnotes, "clarify" or "span" tags that are not needed (I'd never even seen editors use the "span" tag until you started using it; you're still the only editor I've seen use that tag thus far), and I'm not sure how to get you to understand when these things are needed and when they are not needed (though the "span" tag, which looks messier than the other tags, is never needed, in my opinion). The matter can obviously sometimes be subjective. But we've discussed your adding unnecessary headings and/or subheadings, and I think you'll be better about that from now on. So let's talk about tags that you sometimes add. I'll use the "vague" tag as an example. Sometimes, text is vague because sources are vague or because there are too many examples to list without turning the text into a WP:LINKFARM and/or wordfarm without links. Look at Template:Which. It states: Use good judgment when deciding whether greater specificity is actually in the best interests of the article. Words like some or most are not banned and can be useful and appropriate. If greater specificity would result in a tedious laundry list of items with no real importance, then Wikipedia should remain concise, even if it means being vague. If the reliable sources are not specific—if the reliable sources say only that "In some countries..."—then Wikipedia must remain vague.

I'm asking you to try to be better about these things. When you are reverted because sexual stimulation is already linked in an article, then it goes to reason that it's still linked in that article when you add a different term that you've also redirected to the Sexual stimulation article. I wouldn't call the sexual stimulation matter a circular link, by the way. A circular link is when the link keeps you on the same article instead of taking you to a different one. See Help:Self link.

As for vandalism, you have not committed any vandalism that I know of. See WP:Vandalism. And as for banning, no, since you are acting in good faith and are an otherwise productive editor, you would not be banned for making these mistakes or for making edits that are contested instead of mistakes. WP:BAN is also different than WP:BLOCK. Flyer22 (talk) 02:32, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 15

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

2012 Kamaishi earthquake (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Shock

Jordan Rift Valley (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Depression

Plastic particle water pollution (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Nurdle

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:37, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Horse anatomy article

Jarble, just an FYI that the Horse anatomy article is intended to be an overview, the greater detail should be in the spinoff articles where they exist. Thus, don't take detail OUT of stallion and insert it into Horse anatomy; it works the other way around. Your other cleanup is generally helpful and your improvement of links has been useful. Montanabw^(talk) 00:18, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

redlinks and junk

Please stop. Don't convert arbitrary phrases to redlinks, nor links to disambig pages. Use a redlink only if an article at that title is likely. Dicklyon (talk) 01:05, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 9

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Biblical literalism (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Conservative Christians

Fistula (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Congo

Fresco (windowing system) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Widget

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 18:38, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Programming

Hello, Jarble. When you changed Programming from a redirect into a disambiguation page, you may not have been aware of WP:FIXDABLINKS, which says:

A code of honor for creating disambiguation pages is to fix all resulting mis-directed links.

Before moving an article to a qualified name (in order to create a disambiguation page at the base name, to move an existing disambiguation page to that name, or to redirect that name to a disambiguation page), click on What links here to find all of the incoming links. Repair all of those incoming links to use the new article name.

It would be a great help if you would check the other Wikipedia articles that contain links to "Programming" and fix them to take readers to the correct article.

Also, technically, if this term does not have a primary topic, the disambiguation page should be entitled Programming rather than Programming (disambiguation). Therefore, it would be appropriate for you to propose to move the page to the shorter title.

Thanks. R'n'B (call me Russ) 10:24, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Fixing all of the incoming links isn't always easy - it appears that there are dozens of links to programming, which all need to be disambiguated. It will require the effort of many editors to sort out this problem. Jarble (talk) 20:49, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Tag properly, or don't tag at all!

Regarding stuff like this, stop it! I am obviously agitated about repeatedly having to advise you on things and cleaning up after you; so are others, obviously. That is why the tone of this post is rude. Look at the following sections on your talk page about tagging: [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8].

How many more times must you be advised on such things? In the #WP:OVERLINKING yet again section, I very clearly explained to you about appropriate use of tags such as "Which?" and "Whom?." And yet you went ahead and added "According to whom?" inappropriately today. Just stop it. Flyer22 (talk) 20:01, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

OK, feel free to ban me (or ask an administrator to do so). I'm sure the Wikipedia community won't miss me at all. (Most of my contributions to Wikipedia are rather worthless, so I think the community would be better off without my undesirable presence here). Jarble (talk) 20:23, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Jarble, I told you in the WP:OVERLINKING yet again section that I don't mean to make you feel unwanted on Wikipedia. I also stated in that section, "And as for banning, no, since you are acting in good faith and are an otherwise productive editor, you would not be banned for making these mistakes or for making edits that are contested instead of mistakes."

I just don't know how else to help your Wikipedia editing. Flyer22 (talk) 20:38, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Except...you could ask for a WP:MENTOR at Wikipedia:Adopt-a-user/Adoptee's Area. It's not just for new Wikipedia editors; it's also for Wikipedia editors who are not new...but need guidance on some ways that Wikipedia works. You can tell the mentor what you need guidance on, and he or she should be able to help you. But you obviously need to listen (as well as one can listen by reading words) to the mentor and try to understand the explanations he or she gives you. I and others have tried to get you to not only listen, but understand what we are stating when it concerns appropriate editing. Flyer22 (talk) 20:54, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Hey Jarble, I've noticed the traffic at your page since we discussed the horse anatomy stuff, and I think you've been around here long enough (your contribs go back to 2008) to know the WP:MOS a little better than this. Over-tagging and over-linking is just tacky. Looks like you are taking heat from different editors on different articles, so may want to look at that a bit and take the suggestions seriously. (Me, if I'm going to piss off someone, I like to be sure I'm doing it on purpose, LOL) Montanabw^(talk) 19:18, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Recently, I've only added a few disambiguation tags to links that are ambigous (as well as adding "globalize" tags to articles that do not present a worldwide view of a subject). From now on, I'll try to make sure that the tags that I add are as unambiguous as possible (since they appear to have created much confusion in the past).

Recently, I've been much more cautious (and less over-enthusiastic) about adding clarification/disambiguation/globalize/citation needed tags to articles. Are any of my recently added tags are considered problematic? Jarble (talk) 19:23, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Usually, I only add tags where the appear to be necessary (e. g., whenever there are links that require disambiguation, or articles that appear to contain out-of-date information, or sections of articles that are missing information about particular subjects). Is this considered helpful, or is it simply adding unnecessary clutter? Jarble (talk) 19:27, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm not going to review the stuff other people have posted and comment there; I do watch your edits to the pages on my watchlist, and whenever I've had a concern, I've usually just reverted or fixed it myself without much comment because you have been pretty good about not edit-warring on anything I keep an eye on. But in general, be careful if you are using automated tools and don't do a "mass tag and run" on articles, particularly when perhaps one good tag is all that's needed (I use refimprove a lot, flags it for help, but doesn't piss off most people). Overlinking needs to be avoided, it's nice to just fix the dabs yourself when possible, and slapping on a bunch of tags at once tends to irritate people. It is a courtesy to just fix minor stuff instead of tagging it, at least, if you know what you are doing (if you don't, then a tag at the problem sometimes is helpful, if you don't do it too much). The "globalize" tag is, IMHO, one of the most abused tags on wikipedia and should only be used for things where there is a real globalization problem (such as, for example, a topic associated with a particular nation not even talking about its history in that nation, just in other places where the thing was exported). My suggestion is to take an article where you have been the "lead" editor, perhaps one you created, and run it through the Good article gauntlet to see what sort of stuff the reviewers spot. It's a great way to separate out what matters and what doesn't. Montanabw^(talk) 21:18, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Stop overlinking

You've been asked many times, so now I'm telling you: Stop overlinking. Stop and think for a moment whether linking an article from another makes any sense or not. I just reverted this edit of yours. Have a look at it: The article talks about roleplaying anthropomorphic animals in a pen and paper roleplaying game. And you link the term "animal roleplaying" to Animal roleplay, which is an article about erotic sexual role-play. What on earth has a variation of a pen & paper RPG to do with a form of erotic, sexual roleplay?

You have to stop and think before you create a link or a hatnote. Seriously. --Conti|✉ 16:45, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

You make a good point here. I'll see if there's anything I can do to improve the animal roleplaying article to discuss animal roleplaying in other contexts (like the one mentioned in the roleplaying game's article). Jarble (talk) 17:04, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Again, the same issue, this time here. A section about fur fetishism (the physical attraction to fur) is linked by you to Furry fandom#Sexual aspects, the sexual aspects of a fandom. I'm telling you this with my admin hat on: Stop it. Stop and think if a link to another article makes any sense. Just because they happen to have the same words in it does not make them related, and two concepts with similar words can be entirely unrelated. The next time this happens, I'll ask for input on what to do about your careless overlinking at the administrator's noticeboard. --Conti|✉ 21:15, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

OK, feel free to ban me. The world doesn't need worthless people like me who cause so much grief to the rest of the world. I'm going to commit suicide now. :) Jarble (talk) 21:07, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

OK, I've changed my mind aobut committing suicide. I still think I deserve to be banned from Wikipedia, though (since it's pretty obvious that a lot of Wikipedians really hate me and wish I were dead). I think you should ask an administrator to ban me so that the rest of the world won't have to put up with my last few instances of unwanted overlinking. (In my case, being banned from Wikipedia is the next best thing to being killed - I think my physical presence in the world is almost as undesirable as my presence on Wikipedia.) Jarble (talk) 21:13, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Jarble, please don't, on Wikipedia, state that you are going to kill yourself. Even when it's just a joke. The reason that I emphasize not doing so on Wikipedia is because of the Wikipedia:Responding to threats of harm page. Off Wikipedia, while still not good to state that you are going to kill yourself, it can be good to talk about such thoughts with people; it can be a form of therapy. Wikipedia, however, is not therapy, per WP:NOT THERAPY. I know what it's like to have suicidal thoughts; not just the random thought to kill one's self that a lot of people have had, but the serious, persistent ones; I've had them for years. While I emphasize that you have to try your best not to let those thoughts get the better of you, I know that it's not always possible to keep that from happening. But do continue to try your best concerning that matter. If editing Wikipedia helps you keep those thoughts off your mind, you should not give up this site (no matter how many unpleasant encounters you have while on it). I don't think that anyone here hates you or wishes that you were dead. I don't, which is why I'm taking the time to talk with you about this. And, lower on your talk page, I've already addressed the matter of being banned.

Remember, if you are trying your best on Wikipedia, that is a good thing. Sure, people's best is not always best for Wikipedia. But trying to do your best editing is better than not trying to do so. Flyer22 (talk) 22:16, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

I just get too many complaints from editors about seemingly unimportant issues nowadays, and I find it very frustrating. Perhaps this is one of the reasons for the dramatic decline in editing activity that the wiki has seen lately. (Also, I was a bit shocked when I found out that Conti was threatening to ban me because of a few "see also" hatnotes that I added to some articles). Jarble (talk) 22:24, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Most of the things people have complained about concerning your editing is not unimportant on Wikipedia; that's what you need to realize and is why most of the complaints you have received concern the same issues. And Conti did not threaten to have you banned. Above in this section and on his or her talk page, he or she suggested that it will or may take having more people assess the inappropriate editing you engage in...so that such an assessment may finally get you to stop that type of editing. And, again, WP:BLOCK is different than WP:BAN. WP:BAN happens significantly less, even in the case of topic bans. Flyer22 (talk) 22:42, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:DeriveDisambiguation

Template:DeriveDisambiguation has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. The Banner talk 13:02, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Creating disambiguation pages

Hey again, Jarble. I'm concerned about you creating redundant/unhelpful disambiguation pages; you need to stop doing that. The Sexual activity disambiguation page you created, for example, was a mess.[9][10][11] That's not meant to be offensive; that's simply the case. It was somewhat redundant to the Sexuality disambiguation page, except that the Sexuality disambiguation page obviously covers more aspects of sexuality, which is why I redirected it back to the Sexuality page. The Copulation redirect was similarly redundant. We don't need all these disambiguation pages pointing to the same things, with only a few differences. Furthermore, "copulation" is generally synonymous with "sexual intercourse," as explained in the Sexual intercourse article, and at Talk:Copulation where WP:Consensus is that it should redirect to the Sexual intercourse article. Redirecting it to the Mating article would have also been a better option than creating a disambiguation page for it. It is not synonymous with the wording "animal sexual behavior," for example. Still, it is more synonymous with sexual intercourse than mating. All of that is why I reverted your creation of a Copulation disambiguation page. As WP:PRIMARYTOPIC states, "Although a word, name or phrase may refer to more than one topic, it is sometimes the case that one of these topics is the primary topic. This is the topic to which the term should lead, serving as the title of (or a redirect to) the relevant article. If there is no primary topic, the term should be the title of a disambiguation page (or should redirect to a disambiguation page on which more than one term is disambiguated)."

That's why the Sexual activity disambiguation page you created previously (which, as a link, also originally) redirected to Human sexual activity; most people will no doubt be looking for human sexual activity under that title instead of non-human sexual activity under that title. You need to realize when your disambiguation pages are depriving readers of being redirected to the article they are expecting to see when they click on a Wikilink. Generally, people (more often those unfamiliar with how Wikipedia generally works) are not expecting to be redirected to a disambiguation page when they click on an un-disambiguated Wikilink; they are expecting to go to an article. For this reason, disambiguation pages should only be created when necessary; WP:PRIMARYTOPIC goes over that. Most of these redirects have existed for years at the same target for valid reasons; you are now disturbing those redirects on what seems to be a whim. And most definitely, no disambiguation page should redirect to another disambiguation page. Flyer22 (talk) 16:36, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

The purpose of disambiguation pages is to prevent this type of confusion in the first place: editors may not always agree about which meaning of a term is its "primary meaning", since this is often subjective. Disambiguation pages can often be useful because they ensure that links to an ambiguous word or phrase will always point to the correct article about this topic. (Also, whenever a redirect page links to another redirect page, the redirect will be fixed automatically by a Wikipedia bot, so there's nothing wrong with creating a redirect to another redirect page.)

Also, for many disambiguation pages that you deleted, it isn't always clear what is the "primary meaning" of a particular term. The word "programming" sometimes refers to computer programming, but it can also refer to radio programming or television programming. The "primary meaning" of a term is often subjective, and can reflect an editor's bias toward a particular subject that they happen to be familiar with. When an editor creates a link to the word "programming", it may refer to either computer programming, radio programming, or television programming. A computer programmer might consider the term "computer programming" to be the primary meaning of the term, whereas a television programmer might consider "television programming" to be the most important meaning of the term. Jarble (talk) 16:57, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

While editors may not always agree what is a primary meaning, WP:PRIMARYTOPIC exists for a reason; it exists because what is the primary topic is usually very clear, such as by analysis done in this discussion. It exists to keep you from doing what you have been doing when creating disambiguation pages. If what is the primary topic were generally subjective, then WP:PRIMARYTOPIC would not exist. If you don't understand why some of the disambiguation pages you have created are problematic, then I don't know what else to state to you about it. It's similar to the problem you have with overlinking. And with your overlinking, other problematic ways you alter links, and confusing or needless tags you add, I and others are often having to clean up after you. And I honestly don't know what to do about that. You have created Copulation (disambiguation); I fail to see how it is too helpful, since it mentions two terms that are already covered by the Copulation redirect, two terms that are not common among the general public, and links to "All pages with titles containing 'Copulation'" and "All pages with titles containing 'Copulatory'"...even though those two links show that they barely link to any articles. Disambiguation pages are not supposed to exist to point readers to every possible usage of a term. Again, read WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Only when there is no primary topic, should the term be the title of a disambiguation page (or should redirect to a disambiguation page on which more than one term is disambiguated)." The term "copulation," as seen by every definition entry about it, clearly has a primary topic. That the term "sexual intercourse" usually refers to humans makes it no less valid that the Sexual intercourse article, or, at the least, the Mating article, is the primary topic for the term "copulation." And for anyone looking for copulation among non-human animals, the Sexual intercourse article clearly points readers to the Animal sexual behaviour and Mating articles, and discusses sexual intercourse among non-human animals. It's very easy for me to state that most people will not be looking for "copulatory tie" or "copulatory plug" under the title Copulation. Programming is a completely different matter, which clearly has no primary topic. I was going to state that we'll see how the Copulation (disambiguation) page you created goes; and by that, I mean if it lasts or not. I was going to state if it is moved to Copulation, just like Programming (disambiguation) was moved to Programming today, then I will again un-disambiguate the page. But you went ahead and moved it there yourself, and I restored the page as a redirect to the Sexual intercourse article. And again, this discussion should be had at Talk:Copulation instead of here on your talk page or at Talk:Sexual intercourse. Flyer22 (talk) 18:18, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Still, the primary topic of the copulation redirect page is unclear, since the vast majority of links to this redirect page are about non-human animals instead of humans. In that case, it doesn't make much sense to redirect it to sexual intercourse, since that article discusses humans almost exclusively. Misleading redirects like this one should be avoided whenever possible, and redirecting to a disambiguation page would certainly be better than redirecting to the wrong article. Jarble (talk) 18:28, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Given what I stated above, I fail to see how redirecting Copulation to the Sexual intercourse article is a misleading redirect. However, I would be fine with it being redirected to the Mating article, just like the spelling variations of "copulation" redirected to the Mating article:[12][13][14]. But that should be discussed at Talk:Copulation first, especially since redirecting Copulation to the Mating article has been changed back to redirecting it to the Sexual intercourse article more than once. Flyer22 (talk) 18:45, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Jarble, the best way to handle controversial disambiguation and page creation is to put a move request on the page(s) in question and let the people who care all comment there. It's slower, but the result tends to stick. Montanabw^(talk) 19:14, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

How can I add a move request for a specific page, then? Jarble (talk) 19:18, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm curious why you created Penis (disambiguation). The penises listed there should be covered in the Penis article. And since they are, with the exception of the human penis...which readers are pointed to at the top of that article...and with the exception of the Proton-enhanced nuclear induction spectroscopy article...which readers are also pointed to at the top of that article...that disambiguation page is redundant. It did not need to be created just to point readers to the Proton-enhanced nuclear induction spectroscopy article, and it's not as though most people think of that when thinking of the word penis. I'm not going to try to delete the Penis (disambiguation) page, but it is a prime example of what I mean about creating redundant/unhelpful disambiguation pages. Flyer22 (talk) 04:07, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

And one more thing about the copulation matter: The reason that your pipelinking Animal sexual behavior under the word copulation for text dealing with non-human animals (or for the word copulation in general, given that the Animal sexual behavior article is about non-human animals) is not appropriate is because copulation usually equates to penis-in-vagina sexual activity.[15][16] And for animals where there is no penis-in-vagina sexual activity to copulate, it simply means "the transfer of the sperm from male to female." The Sexual intercourse article addresses this, in the first line of its lead by showing that copulation is an alternative term for the insertion of the penis into the vagina for sexual pleasure or reproduction, by mentioning in its final lead paragraph that sexual intercourse between non-human animals is usually referred to as copulation, and by going over the definition of copulation in its Etymology and definitions section...and in its Other animals section. The Animal sexual behaviour article, unlike the Mating article, does not make this clear, and instead starts off stating "Animal sexual behaviour takes many different forms," which is another reason why the Sexual intercourse article or the Mating article are significantly better targets for the term copulation. My stating this to you does not mean that I think you should transport text from any of these articles about this matter and place it in the Animal sexual behaviour article, or that I want to continue discussing this matter with you (I don't). I just felt that you should know this, especially so that you are not surprised when anyone removes your Animal sexual behavior/Copulation pipelinks. Flyer22 (talk) 16:25, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

As stated in the #"In use" tag section below, the words mating and copulation, along with associated aspects, are now mentioned in the lead of the Animal sexual behaviour article. Flyer22 (talk) 02:30, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

"In use" tag

So I take it that you didn't see that,[17][18] or are you just ignoring it? Flyer22 (talk) 17:49, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

I thought the tag was automatically added by a bot when I was editing the page. Was it added automatically because of one of my edits, or was it added for some other reason? Jarble (talk) 17:54, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

I've reverted all of the edits that I made since the tag was added. You can go back to editing the page now. Jarble (talk) 17:57, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

I hadn't began editing the article when you were adding things after I added the "In use" tag, so there was no hassle for me on that matter. I just wanted to know if you knew that I was about to begin editing the article. To my knowledge, bots do not add that tag. It's a tag that editors place on an article because they are going to be doing substantial editing to it and want to avoid WP:Edit conflicts during that time. As seen by this removal of the tag by a different editor, it took me hours to finally get around to making my intended changes; the delay was due to distractions elsewhere on Wikipedia. But, as you know, I finally got around to making them, as seen with this and this edit. The words mating and copulation, along with associated aspects, are now mentioned in the lead, which they should be for the reasons I stated above in the #Creating disambiguation pages section on April 12th on your talk page, and because the mentions abide by WP:LEAD when taking into account the fact that both terms are extensively mentioned lower in the article.

By now, you've also likely seen this revert I made regarding an edit you made. We should definitely regulate the article to mainly the topic of animal sexual behavior instead of things related to it, especially when those things are not about sexual behavior. Also shown in that edit summary, you need to be more careful when moving text from one article to another. When moving references from one article to another, it's a matter of checking to see if the references you are moving are complete references and not just refnames. As you now know, this is covered at Wikipedia:NAMEDREFS#Multiple references to the same footnote. Bringing over the refname in absence of the source in its entirety leaves the reference invalid. Making sure that there is no redundant text or circular links are also issues when moving text from one article to another. Flyer22 (talk) 02:30, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

On a side note, I hate when I get a page number wrong; that type of mistake doesn't happen open with me, however. Flyer22 (talk) 02:48, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Category:Human pregnancy and birth

Category:Human pregnancy and birth, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 06:28, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 17

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

ALGOL (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Table

Amazon Mechanical Turk (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Contractor

Animal sexual behaviour (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Disgorge

Folk art (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Chillum

Paddy field (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Tavy

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 01:40, 17 April 2013 (UTC)