User talk:Jarble/Archive 3
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | → | Archive 10 |
Moving text about non-human animals into a new article
I don't mind this move much, but I hope that you don't start doing that type of thing for any Wikipedia article that you come across. For Wikipedia articles regarding topics that pertain to humans and non-human animals, unless that article is specifically about humans or specifically about non-human animals, such a Wikipedia article is more well-rounded if there is information in it about both humans and non-human animals. WP:MEDMOS, which also addresses anatomy, shows that, for example. And so do the WP:GA and WP:FA processes, often. So it would be best to keep the Other animals section in the Urination article, but to have it be a decent-sized summary (not too small or too big) of the Urine marking article you created, with a Main article link in it pointing readers to that article. Further, there are topics that have been studied significantly less with regard to non-human animals and therefore there is no need for a separate article for that information when it can, and likely should, be covered in one article about the general topic. You don't like that most Wikipedia articles regarding topics that pertain to humans and non-human animals are mostly about humans, but we generally have the Other animals section because of what I stated in this edit summary, and because the topics generally have not been studied as significantly, or much at all, with regard to non-human animals. Flyer22 (talk) 00:55, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
- I think that WP:CFORK also applies. I'd rather see one good, solid article with a subsection on non-human animals than two articles, one of which is a crappy stub. For example, where there is a complex article like lordosis or club foot and beyond the human cases, really all there is to say is that "some non-human animals have this too and here is what it's all about" in a couple paragraphs, as an animal owner looking for information, it would be silly to just parrot all the basic information that is the same for all creatures, human and otherwise for the purpose of two articles - in fact, I think that there is a policy somewhere on wiki that discourages doing precisely that. That said, urine marking IS worth its own article because (as a general rule) humans (at least sober ones) don't do a whole lot of urine scent marking of their territory... =:-O Montanabw(talk) 19:06, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
- I'm still not sure whether it would be better to keep it as a sub-section of the original article, or to move it into a new article. I actually moved it into its own article, but then reverted my edits afterward. Of course, it will be necessary to prevent any content from being unnecessarily duplicated in both of those articles, if they are to be separated. Jarble (talk) 19:10, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
- I explained above in this section that there can be both -- an Other animals section in the Urination article that has "a decent-sized summary (not too small or too big) of the Urine marking article you created, with a Main article link in it pointing readers to that article." That type of content forking is often practiced on Wikipedia, and is perfectly acceptable, as stated at Wikipedia:Content forking#Article spinouts: "Summary style" articles. That stated, that guideline centers around when an article gets too big. The Urination article is not so big that it's a detriment to the article to leave the Other animals section there in its entirety. Wikipedia:Content forking also acknowledges that related articles may duplicate material, which may be acceptable and is not necessarily a content fork. You should also read Wikipedia:Summary style#Avoiding unnecessary splits. Again, I don't care much either way if there is a Urine marking article, and, like Montanabw stated, urine marking is worth its own article. I just wanted to explain to you why we often keep the Other animals sections in the human-dominated articles, and to think carefully before creating a spin-off article. I didn't want you to get carried away with that. Flyer22 (talk) 20:17, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
- Also, since you are often copying text from one article to another, including text that I've created, you may also be interested in the Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia guideline. I worded that as "may also be" because most Wikipedians, from what I have seen, don't know about that guideline and therefore don't abide by it. Even those who do know about it, either don't abide by it or generally don't abide by it (yes, including me). But leaving an attribution is as simple as noting in the edit summary that you are transporting text from one article to another. Flyer22 (talk) 20:37, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
- I explained above in this section that there can be both -- an Other animals section in the Urination article that has "a decent-sized summary (not too small or too big) of the Urine marking article you created, with a Main article link in it pointing readers to that article." That type of content forking is often practiced on Wikipedia, and is perfectly acceptable, as stated at Wikipedia:Content forking#Article spinouts: "Summary style" articles. That stated, that guideline centers around when an article gets too big. The Urination article is not so big that it's a detriment to the article to leave the Other animals section there in its entirety. Wikipedia:Content forking also acknowledges that related articles may duplicate material, which may be acceptable and is not necessarily a content fork. You should also read Wikipedia:Summary style#Avoiding unnecessary splits. Again, I don't care much either way if there is a Urine marking article, and, like Montanabw stated, urine marking is worth its own article. I just wanted to explain to you why we often keep the Other animals sections in the human-dominated articles, and to think carefully before creating a spin-off article. I didn't want you to get carried away with that. Flyer22 (talk) 20:17, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
- I'm still not sure whether it would be better to keep it as a sub-section of the original article, or to move it into a new article. I actually moved it into its own article, but then reverted my edits afterward. Of course, it will be necessary to prevent any content from being unnecessarily duplicated in both of those articles, if they are to be separated. Jarble (talk) 19:10, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for April 25
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.
- Chatham Islands (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- added a link pointing to Waka
- Kantele (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- added a link pointing to Dulcimer
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 00:35, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
Watch your user page for vandalism
If you don't already watch your user page by use of your WP:Watchlist, you should because of cases of vandalism. Flyer22 (talk) 22:15, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Non-violent crime listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Non-violent crime. Since you had some involvement with the Non-violent crime redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 07:06, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for May 2
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.
- Accountancy (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- added a link pointing to Enterprise
- Social insurance (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- added a link pointing to Benefits
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:26, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
May 2013
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Penile sheath may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page
|
|---|
|
Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 21:58, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
Up your alley
Found this article: Update on horse sheath cleaning, with how-to video link the topic in general is up your alley, so thought I'd see if you want to integrate any of it into the management sections of gelding or stallion (the gelding article has some good info already, much of which probably should also be ported to stallion, and the update added). Montanabw(talk) 22:39, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for May 19
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Asynchronous I/O, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Processing (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) 23:39, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for May 31
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Hacker (computer security), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bot (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) 11:11, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Free software development listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Free software development. Since you had some involvement with the Free software development redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). AVRS (talk) 11:47, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Ambox-throwing
Hello. I have some doubts and questions about your recent mathematical edits. Generally, this your activity appears to be useful (at least much more useful than this and similar edits), but I do not think labelling section as unreferenced is helpful in math articles where numerous textbooks exist on these elementary topic. See Wikipedia talk: WikiProject Mathematics #Ambox-throwing to sections. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 06:13, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
- I'm not sure why I created a link to particle collsion, which is obviously a typo. Thanks for pointing out my mistake. Jarble (talk) 06:33, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
quotient ring
Your statement in this edit summary that the section appears to consist of original research is very strange, in view of the fact that the examples listed are standard things found in all textbooks. 174.53.163.119 (talk) 13:02, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
Jarble, what is the point of having a Urine marking article when you have the text duplicated in its entirety in the Other animals section of the Urination article and in the Scent marking section of the Territory (animal) article?
What is the point of having a Marsupial reproductive system article when you have the text duplicated in its entirety in the Reproductive system section of the Marsupial article, and in the Marsupials section of the Sexual reproduction article?
Do you not see the redundancy, how it makes no sense to point readers to a main article that offers nothing new, or hardly anything new, than the section in the non-main article does? Do you not see that this is inappropriate use of WP:Content forking? It doesn't appear that you properly digested what was stated to you above on your talk page about splitting content away from articles and content forking.
Since I still watch the Urination article, I'd already seen the Urine marking duplication you created, but I was hoping that someone else would address you about it, just like Montanabw fixed your incorrect use of template creation for the topic of horse sheath cleaning, because I'm tired of explaining to you the right or wrong way to do things at this site, and I'm tired of cleaning up after you. And because I know that you are tired of me complaining about your work at this site. But seeing you create this latest redundancy, the aforementioned marsupial reproductive system matter, I decided to complain about your work on your talk page yet again. You really do need a WP:MENTOR, like I stated before. But seeing as, with regard to your problematic editing, you barely listen to those who are not your mentors, or rather don't seem to understand what they are stating, it's not likely that a mentor will keep you from making the same kinds of problematic edits you've been making. You always state that you will try to be better not to make the same type of problematic edits that have been repeatedly mentioned to you, but whether you try or not, or don't make the same problematic edits for a week or so, the problematic editing continues. Flyer22 (talk) 05:19, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
- Generally, I try to avoid the duplication of source code in articles, and transclusion usually doesn't involve any duplication of articles. Is excessive transclusion considered a type of content forking, despite the fact that it doesn't involve any source code duplication? (Generally, when a template is edited, all copies of that template will be automatically synchronized across all pages with that template, so it isn't really "forking" in the traditional sense of the term).
- My understanding is that "content forking" refers to the actual duplication of source code on individual pages, which is something that I generally try to avoid. I might have been wrong about this, unfortunately - I didn't realize that transclusion was considered harmful until now, since no one has pointed this out to me before. Should I replace the templates with the links to the articles that I've created, instead of transcluding the articles into other articles? Jarble (talk) 05:31, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
- Also, does Wikipedia have any official guidelines that argue for or against the transclusion of templates, and does it really fall within the usual definition of "content forking"? Jarble (talk) 05:35, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
- The Urine marking page is an article; it's not supposed to be used as a template. And I don't understand how you cannot see that you've been inappropriately content forking. Yes, as shown above, you have been duplicating articles in sections.
- Also, does Wikipedia have any official guidelines that argue for or against the transclusion of templates, and does it really fall within the usual definition of "content forking"? Jarble (talk) 05:35, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
- Anyway, as you have seen by now via the notifications system, I've gone to yet another editor to ask for help in getting you to edit better at this site. My patience is now thin when it comes to helping you. For example, if I comment any more in this section, it will not help you; this is because, to reiterate what I stated above, "with regard to your problematic editing, you barely listen to those who are not your mentors, or rather don't seem to understand what they are stating." But it was worth a shot asking someone else to weigh in on this. Flyer22 (talk) 06:07, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
- The WP:Content forking article doesn't mention transclusion at all, and I haven't seen any official guidelines that describe transclusion as a form of "copying" or "content forking", so I think it still seems like a bit of a gray area. Directly copying and pasting content creates multiple versions of an article, but transclusion of an article doesn't create multiple copies, so it isn't clear whether or not this should be considered content forking. Are there any articles on Wikipedia that discuss problematic forms of transclusion in any detail (as opposed to content forking, which involves direct copying and pasting of content instead of transclusion)? Jarble (talk) 06:17, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
- I'm not sure why you thought that the fact that I did not respond to your latest comments here and here meant that you should press on with this addition that I reverted (with a correction in my edit summary). I don't understand what you don't grasp about what you were doing wrong; I state "were" in this case because I see that you have removed the duplications. Conti told you before to use common sense when editing Wikipedia, but, from what I have seen, common sense often seems to escape your editing. How at all does it matter whether or not it is direct copying or indirect copying? The fact remains that you were copying articles in their entirety in sections of other articles. Above, I pointed out the instance where Montanabw reverted your creation of a template because you had made the template into an article. Lately, you were doing the reverse; you were using articles as templates. I told you above that the Urine marking page is an article and is not supposed to be used as a template; the same applies to all articles. I asked you simple questions about the ridiculousness of the redundancy of having a section be a complete copy of an article and pointing readers to the article as though there is anything different in it than what is in the section. But you ignored that and focused on the fact that you were not directly copying. This is why my patience is thin when trying to explain things to you; most of the explanation seems to go over your head. And despite my previously stating that you are an otherwise productive editor, lately, most of your edits are cleanup for others. You really should find yourself a WP:MENTOR and truly listen to that mentor. Conti suggested that "getting wider community input," such as a Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct, "would be the next logical step" if your problematic editing continued; I think that as well. Flyer22 (talk) 21:05, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
- I've merged all of the transcluded articles back into their original sections now. Jarble (talk) 21:34, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
- My recent edits may go against "common sense" (from your specific point of view), but do they conflict with any specific policies or guidelines? Jarble (talk) 21:38, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
- Per above, I of course already know that you did that. And, yes, what you did goes against WP:Content forking; that page shouldn't have to mention transclusion for you to know that WP:Content forking applies to duplicating an article in its entirety in a section...directly or indirectly. Flyer22 (talk) 21:48, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
- I'm not sure why you thought that the fact that I did not respond to your latest comments here and here meant that you should press on with this addition that I reverted (with a correction in my edit summary). I don't understand what you don't grasp about what you were doing wrong; I state "were" in this case because I see that you have removed the duplications. Conti told you before to use common sense when editing Wikipedia, but, from what I have seen, common sense often seems to escape your editing. How at all does it matter whether or not it is direct copying or indirect copying? The fact remains that you were copying articles in their entirety in sections of other articles. Above, I pointed out the instance where Montanabw reverted your creation of a template because you had made the template into an article. Lately, you were doing the reverse; you were using articles as templates. I told you above that the Urine marking page is an article and is not supposed to be used as a template; the same applies to all articles. I asked you simple questions about the ridiculousness of the redundancy of having a section be a complete copy of an article and pointing readers to the article as though there is anything different in it than what is in the section. But you ignored that and focused on the fact that you were not directly copying. This is why my patience is thin when trying to explain things to you; most of the explanation seems to go over your head. And despite my previously stating that you are an otherwise productive editor, lately, most of your edits are cleanup for others. You really should find yourself a WP:MENTOR and truly listen to that mentor. Conti suggested that "getting wider community input," such as a Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct, "would be the next logical step" if your problematic editing continued; I think that as well. Flyer22 (talk) 21:05, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
- The WP:Content forking article doesn't mention transclusion at all, and I haven't seen any official guidelines that describe transclusion as a form of "copying" or "content forking", so I think it still seems like a bit of a gray area. Directly copying and pasting content creates multiple versions of an article, but transclusion of an article doesn't create multiple copies, so it isn't clear whether or not this should be considered content forking. Are there any articles on Wikipedia that discuss problematic forms of transclusion in any detail (as opposed to content forking, which involves direct copying and pasting of content instead of transclusion)? Jarble (talk) 06:17, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
- Anyway, as you have seen by now via the notifications system, I've gone to yet another editor to ask for help in getting you to edit better at this site. My patience is now thin when it comes to helping you. For example, if I comment any more in this section, it will not help you; this is because, to reiterate what I stated above, "with regard to your problematic editing, you barely listen to those who are not your mentors, or rather don't seem to understand what they are stating." But it was worth a shot asking someone else to weigh in on this. Flyer22 (talk) 06:07, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
Inline citations vs footnotes
I see you have tagged some things as needing inline citations that already have them — just not as footnotes. Thanks for your efforts to improve referencing in WIkipedia, but please see Wikipedia:Parenthetical referencing: the Author (year) style of citing references is explicitly stated by Wikipedia guidelines to be acceptable as an alternative to footnotes for articles that use them. So for articles that use this style (and have an adequate number of inline citations of whatever format) the tag is inappropriate. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:11, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for June 12
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Penis, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Water boatman (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) 12:06, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
SOPA and censorship
You may have noticed that User:Xenophrenic reverted your addition of Category:Internet censorship in the United States to the SOPA article. I agree with you: I think it should be so categorized. I explained why in Talk:Stop Online Piracy Act#Category: Internet censorship in the United States? and posted a link to that on User talk:Xenophrenic. Unless I hear a persuasive argument for Xenophrenic's position in the next couple of days, I propose to revert that reversion ;-) Thanks for your efforts to improve Wikipedia. DavidMCEddy (talk) 10:18, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
- @User:DavidMCEddy I've found a couple of news articles which describe SOPA as an Internet censorship bill. Have you found any reliable sources that describe SOPA as a form of censorship? @User:Xenophrenic: Was there any previous discussion about this issue on Wikipedia? Jarble (talk) 16:45, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
- Please see the article Talk page. :-)
- Hmm, I'm liking this new Notifications feature the devs have implemented. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 16:49, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
- @User:Xenophrenic: Which specific talk page are you referring to? Jarble (talk) 16:53, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
- Hi, Xenophrenic & Jarble: A search of the Stop Online Piracy Act article found 22 uses of the word "censorship" and 3 uses of "Internet censorship". The article needs someone to read it carefully and update it based on what has and has not happened in this area since then. From what I know, SOPA and PIPA are dead, and the major media conglomerates are pushing for international trade agreements to protect their oligopolistic power. However, I'm not current on any of this, and that's probably more work than any of us is ready for. Censorship was not an official part of the legislation, but it was a large part of the motivation of the opposition. Moreover, I saw a reference claiming that at least one representative of a major media conglomerate suggested to a representative of the Mexican government that the related Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement could be used for censorship once approved. I strongly support restoring Category:Internet censorship to this article. If User:Xenophrenic does not produce a reasonable counterargument in a couple of days, I propose to restore that category -- after adding more comments about this to Talk:Stop Online Piracy Act. If two different people make the same edit, it should reduce the chances that User:Xenophrenic or anyone else will revert it again -- even if they don't take the time to read some of this discussion. Thanks for your contributions. DavidMCEddy (talk) 21:15, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
- A more thorough search of the article finds only 12 mentions of the word "Censorship" (with the remainder being in the titles of reference citations). Of those 12 mentions, several are made as speculative claims by opponents that the legislation may lead to censorship; several mentions say that the legislation does not constitute censorship, and there are several mentions of the "Censorship Day" protest. The article does not mention in Wikipedia's voice that censorship has anything to do with this legislation. David, the reasonable argument is already on the article Talk page, so I direct your attention there. Perhaps you missed it. As for increasing the chances that an edit will remain, you should follow Wikipedia policy and substantiate the proposed edit, rather than make plans to editwar your edit into the article. I'll look for any future discussion on this matter on the article Talk page, as that is the proper venue. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 22:05, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
- @User:Xenophrenic: Which specific articles did you find which counter the claims of SOPA being an Internet censorship bill? Jarble (talk) 03:14, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
- A more thorough search of the article finds only 12 mentions of the word "Censorship" (with the remainder being in the titles of reference citations). Of those 12 mentions, several are made as speculative claims by opponents that the legislation may lead to censorship; several mentions say that the legislation does not constitute censorship, and there are several mentions of the "Censorship Day" protest. The article does not mention in Wikipedia's voice that censorship has anything to do with this legislation. David, the reasonable argument is already on the article Talk page, so I direct your attention there. Perhaps you missed it. As for increasing the chances that an edit will remain, you should follow Wikipedia policy and substantiate the proposed edit, rather than make plans to editwar your edit into the article. I'll look for any future discussion on this matter on the article Talk page, as that is the proper venue. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 22:05, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
- Hi, Xenophrenic & Jarble: A search of the Stop Online Piracy Act article found 22 uses of the word "censorship" and 3 uses of "Internet censorship". The article needs someone to read it carefully and update it based on what has and has not happened in this area since then. From what I know, SOPA and PIPA are dead, and the major media conglomerates are pushing for international trade agreements to protect their oligopolistic power. However, I'm not current on any of this, and that's probably more work than any of us is ready for. Censorship was not an official part of the legislation, but it was a large part of the motivation of the opposition. Moreover, I saw a reference claiming that at least one representative of a major media conglomerate suggested to a representative of the Mexican government that the related Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement could be used for censorship once approved. I strongly support restoring Category:Internet censorship to this article. If User:Xenophrenic does not produce a reasonable counterargument in a couple of days, I propose to restore that category -- after adding more comments about this to Talk:Stop Online Piracy Act. If two different people make the same edit, it should reduce the chances that User:Xenophrenic or anyone else will revert it again -- even if they don't take the time to read some of this discussion. Thanks for your contributions. DavidMCEddy (talk) 21:15, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
Unreferenced
Hi, you put an unreferenced article tag on Man (Middle-earth), the article contains external links, which are a (rubbish) form of references so the more appropriate tag is {{inline}}. Cheers GimliDotNet (Speak to me,Stuff I've done) 17:54, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
Transclusion of articles into other articles
Hello, I've just realized what you did at Sexual reproduction after noticing this edit to the talk page. Transcluding articles into other articles is not a good idea because it creates duplicate appendix sections (i.e references, external links) and introduces unnecessary detail into Wikipedia articles (why do we need to know about the evolution of marsupials in the sexual reproduction article)? Do not do that again. User:Graham8787 03:53, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
- @Graham87 That's really surprising - it appears that I accidentally broke the intended transclusion when I merged one article into another article. That explains the irrelevant content (which was unintentionally transcluded as a result of the article merger).
In the future, I'll try not to merge templates into other templates (since it appears that it can lead to unexpected problems like this one). Jarble (talk) 04:30, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for June 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.
- Sexual coercion (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- added a link pointing to Water vole
- Stabbing (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- added a link pointing to Penetration
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:57, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for July 5
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Dissociation (psychology), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Detachment (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) 10:42, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
Category:Penile erection
Category:Penile erection, 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. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:35, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for July 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.
- Personality (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- added a link pointing to Mediator
- Relational database (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- added a link pointing to Schema
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:49, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for July 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.
- Abnormal psychology (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- added a link pointing to Subnormal
- Adhocracy (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- added a link pointing to Organic
- Blasphemy (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- added a link pointing to Reverence
- Japanese name (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- added a link pointing to Yamato
- Logistics (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- added a link pointing to Lodge
- Path of least resistance (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- added a link pointing to Resistance
- Supply (economics) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- added a link pointing to Product
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:00, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
Doubt about something in the Dolphin article
Hi, I've come across a mention of Indus river dolphin on the main article here, isn't the Indus river dolphin NOT a dolphin? (It's not under delphinidae) so shouldn't it not be there or maybe a clarification stating this interesting fact? -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 17:09, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
- @User:Ugog Nizdast: I've added a {{citation needed}} tag to Dolphin#Etymology, where this issue is addressed. The article contradicts itself: it claims that the word "dolphin" is synonymous with Delphinidae, but gives a broader definition as well. Jarble (talk) 22:13, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
- That is confusing, the Indus river dolphin article says it belongs to its own family Platanistoidea. Anyway, thanks for your time, good day. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 06:24, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
- @User:Ugog Nizdast: Meanwhile, we can still search for references to verify this contentious statement in the Dolphin article. Here is a good place to start looking for reliable sources. Jarble (talk) 16:20, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
- That is confusing, the Indus river dolphin article says it belongs to its own family Platanistoidea. Anyway, thanks for your time, good day. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 06:24, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Okay, I've done it but had no choice but to include 4 families in the infobox since that was what I dug up. Hope that is fine. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 18:40, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for July 26
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Human Development Report, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Human development (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) 10:52, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
Tag bombing... again
Please don't add {{bare urls}} tags to articles that only have a small number bare links, but which otherwise okay, like you did here. There is absolutely no need to bother every reader about such a minor problem. At most, place such a tag on the talk page, or better, immediately fix the problem yourself. There even exists a tool to assist with such tasks, see WP:REFLINKS. —Ruud 02:11, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
August 2013
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Semen collection may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
- List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
- Methods of semen collection in an ambulatory greater one‐horned rhinoceros (rhinoceros unicornis).]]" Zoo Biology 9.3 (1990): 211-221.
Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 03:48, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
Category:Cat superheroes
Category:Cat superheroes, 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. JDDJS (talk) 18:36, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for August 2
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.
- August 2012 Sinai attack (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- added a link pointing to Firefight
- Ruhollah Khomeini (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- added a link pointing to MKO
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:37, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
Can of worms
Jarble, I'm really tempted to Nominate Category:Individual male horses for deletion, but will hold off a couple days to let you mull it over. If you really want to go down that road, there are over 9,000 articles in Wikiproject horse racing, the majority about individually named horses, and the majority of them stallions or geldings. It's about like Category:men or something. Just FYI, and if you want to keep it, then good luck with all that! :) Montanabw(talk) 18:54, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
- @User:Montanabw Yes, it would certainly be tedious to categorize these articles manually. However, I think it would be fairly easy to categorize these articles automatically using Template:Infobox thoroughbred racehorse. I am already familiar with MediaWiki template syntax, so I think I could automatically categorize these articles without much difficulty: it would only require some minor additions to the layout of these templates. Jarble (talk) 20:06, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
- NONONONONO! My point is that the "boy horse" and "girl horse" categories are silly. We already have a zillion "famous Thoroughbreds" categories of various sorts, no need to do boys and girls beyond the truly exceptional "famous mares" stuff for the girls who beat the boys, which is generally uncommon and there won't be many, certainly not thousands. Montanabw(talk) 22:55, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for August 9
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Lambda calculus, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Binding and Substitution (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) 10:53, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for August 16
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Change of variables, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Expression (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) 11:00, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
Category:Computer games with procedurally generated levels
Hi! Category:Computer games with procedurally generated levels should be called "Video games with ..." per project guidelines and common practice. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 18:20, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
- @User:Hellknowz How can I change the category's title, then? Jarble (talk) 18:22, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
- Just rename/move it. I can do that if you want, I just didn't want to since you just created it and were actively editing/adding it. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 18:24, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
- @User:Hellknowz: I think I'll need some assistance with renaming the category. Thanks for your help! Jarble (talk) 18:27, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
- Oh, bloody hell, since when do users not have the rights to move categories... I guess you need to list it at WP:CFDS. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 18:36, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
- @User:Hellknowz: If you want to circumvent this process, then you can just replace the page's content with {{category redirect|name of new category}}, and then copy and paste the category's original content to the new category page. Then, the contents of the category will be automatically migrated by a bot. However, this won't migrate the original page's history to the new page, so it's probably better to list it at WP:CFDS. Jarble (talk) 18:42, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
- Oh, bloody hell, since when do users not have the rights to move categories... I guess you need to list it at WP:CFDS. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 18:36, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
- @User:Hellknowz: I think I'll need some assistance with renaming the category. Thanks for your help! Jarble (talk) 18:27, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
- Just rename/move it. I can do that if you want, I just didn't want to since you just created it and were actively editing/adding it. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 18:24, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for August 24
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.
- Component-based software engineering (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- added a link pointing to Function
- Software framework (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) 11:58, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
Dis-Vandalization please -
|
The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar |
| There are a number of accounts - which have vandalized the Stalking page, as of th 24th, -removing perfectly referenced, material, which was in use on another page word-for word-
This material was maliciously vandalized, removed - on the 24th of August, please check the log Dynomitedetails (talk) 18:35, 25 August 2013 (UTC) |
@User:Dynomitedetails: Which specific users have vandalized these articles? Jarble (talk) 00:27, 26 August 2013 (UTC) user name "Phil Bridger" -*Please note that the material as posted - perfectly complemented and completed the paragraph in which it was placed, it was perfect in grammer, references, and design,
you can see illumination of not only the paragraph, but the article on whole.
the vandal seems to be less than fully literate to edit his material is choppy and is not-flowing, yet he entrenches the material he posted, seeming to rely on force *manpower rather than good editing, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dynomitedetails (talk • contribs) 00:32, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Category:People who married their first cousins
Category:People who married their first cousins, 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. Ibadibam (talk) 21:54, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for August 31
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.
- Differential equation (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- added a link pointing to Hyperbolic
- Palmasola (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- added a link pointing to Maximum security prison
- Ritual (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- added a link pointing to Formalism
- Violence (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- added a link pointing to Self-abuse
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:53, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
Category:Agricultural terraces
Category:Agricultural terraces, 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. DexDor (talk) 05:38, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
Category:Nazi scientists
Category:Nazi scientists, 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. Wlmg (talk) 13:08, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
Religious categories
You have gone too far in creating unneccessary category layers in my view. Please discuss this sort of change first in future. Johnbod (talk) 20:04, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
- @User:Johnbod: I created the category Category:religious iconography because the description of Category:Iconography states that "This Category is for articles concerned with Iconography, the subjects and content of the visual arts, not specifically with religious icons." I'm trying to follow the guidelines that were stated in that category's description. Jarble (talk) 21:36, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
- You have completely misunderstood the point of that note, which was to clarify that it was about Iconography in its normal sense, not icons, the study of which is sometimes also called "iconography". I'm afraid many of your edits show you have little understanding of this subject area, and I suggest you avoid bold editing to do with it. Johnbod (talk) 23:50, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
- @User:Johnbod: According to the article about iconography, religious iconography is only one specific type of iconography, while the broader topic of iconography includes both religious and non-religious iconography. If this is true, then is it accurate to categorize religious iconography as a specific type of iconography? Jarble (talk) 21:07, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
- It is "accurate", but it is not useful, because a small intermediate subcat is created which just wastes people's time. Not every possible division of categories should be made. It is not good to send people down a whole line of nearly empty subdivided categories. And you wrongly classified some articles when splitting the category. Johnbod (talk) 21:16, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
- @User:Johnbod: Which categories appear to be incorrectly classified? I think we should try to merge them back into the correct categories, if possible. Jarble (talk) 21:20, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
- I have made a number of edits in the last 24, catching most of them I hope. Religious image is a useless article, and rarely the best place to send people. Johnbod (talk) 22:02, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
- @User:Johnbod: Which categories appear to be incorrectly classified? I think we should try to merge them back into the correct categories, if possible. Jarble (talk) 21:20, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
- It is "accurate", but it is not useful, because a small intermediate subcat is created which just wastes people's time. Not every possible division of categories should be made. It is not good to send people down a whole line of nearly empty subdivided categories. And you wrongly classified some articles when splitting the category. Johnbod (talk) 21:16, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
- @User:Johnbod: According to the article about iconography, religious iconography is only one specific type of iconography, while the broader topic of iconography includes both religious and non-religious iconography. If this is true, then is it accurate to categorize religious iconography as a specific type of iconography? Jarble (talk) 21:07, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
- You have completely misunderstood the point of that note, which was to clarify that it was about Iconography in its normal sense, not icons, the study of which is sometimes also called "iconography". I'm afraid many of your edits show you have little understanding of this subject area, and I suggest you avoid bold editing to do with it. Johnbod (talk) 23:50, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for September 7
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.
- Homogeneous function (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- added a link pointing to Factor
- Sadistic personality disorder (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- added a link pointing to Sadism
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:14, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
Template:Tag highlight has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Anomie⚔ 18:16, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for September 14
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Integrating factor, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Differential (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) 11:00, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
Category:Subspecies of Canis lupus
Category:Subspecies of Canis lupus, 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. I apologize for the delay in notifying you of this discussion. Thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 10:29, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for September 21
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Model transformation, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Model (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) 12:31, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
The article Sleep restriction has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
- This page is a redirect to Sleep deprivation, but sleep restriction and sleep deprivation are not the same thing. Sleep restriction is a method of curing insomnia by limiting time in bed to a certain range of hours equal in length to the person's total daily sleeping time, to train the body to release sleep hormones at bedtime. Sleep deprivation is simply not getting enough sleep. See Cognitive behavioral therapy for insomnia#Sleep restriction. Sleep restriction should have an article of its own. Until someone starts one, there should simply be no article at all rather than a redirect to a different topic.
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Ben Kovitz (talk) 19:49, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
- @User:BenKovitz: I have made the changes to the article that you have requested, so the article is now a stub instead of a redirect page. Thanks for helping! Jarble (talk) 01:30, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for September 29
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Rice–Shapiro theorem, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Function and 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) 11:35, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
Category:Cat artists
Category:Cat artists, 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. Sven Manguard Wha? 04:28, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for October 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.
- Ahab (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- added a link pointing to King of Israel
- Indonesian language (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- added a link pointing to Wijaya
- Social safety net (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- added a link pointing to Shock
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:35, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for October 13
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.
- Frangibility (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- added a link pointing to Deformation
- Sortal (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- added a link pointing to Modifier
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:30, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
Breaking changes listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Breaking changes. Since you had some involvement with the Breaking changes redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). — PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler) 00:54, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for October 23
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.
- Arbitration in the United States (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- added a link pointing to Lockout
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:20, 23 October 2013 (UTC)