User talk:Leschnei/Archive 2

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

New Page Reviewing

Hello, Leschnei.

I've seen you editing recently and you seem like an experienced Wikipedia editor.
Would you please consider becoming a New Page Reviewer? Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines; currently Wikipedia needs experienced users at this task. (After gaining the flag, patrolling is not mandatory. One can do it at their convenience). But kindly read the tutorial before making your decision. Thanks. —usernamekiran(talk) 00:22, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

@Usernamekiran:, thanks, I'll take a look at the tutorial and think about it. Leschnei (talk) 00:26, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
You welcomed me to Wikipedia, and gave me some nice constructive criticism. Thanks a lot! Heliozoan (talk) 01:59, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
@Heliozoan: You're welcome. Leschnei (talk) 18:48, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Your Intro to Wikipedia

Hi Leschnei, I copied your intro to Wikipedia (with some minor modifications) to use for other nascent Wikipedians. I just wanted to make sure you were OK with it. Heliozoan (talk) 20:49, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

@Heliozoan: That's just fine. I'm sure that I 'borrowed' most of it from another editor. And another tip for you - new comments on talk pages go at the bottom (I've moved yours). There's always more to learn! Leschnei (talk) 20:57, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
@Heliozoan: There is more information on greeting people here. Leschnei (talk) 20:59, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
@Leschnei: Thank you. I'll use it as a template in the future. Sorry for not conforming to the talk page syntax. I'll keep that in mind. Heliozoan (talk) 21:02, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Dab solver

Thanks for fixing Time Out 100 best British films. I looked at that and wondered whether someone was going to revert it as copyvio but it seems to have stuck, so the job needed doing. Are you aware of Dab solver? It's a handy tool for mending pages like that with lots of bad links. Some editors prefer to fix things manually but the tool is there if you find it useful. The FIX links in the daily Articles With Multiple Dablinks report take you straight to Dab solver and open the article for you. Certes (talk) 12:32, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

@Certes: Thanks for the tip. I do consult it sometimes, but I always seem to go back to doing it by hand so I know exactly how it will look when I'm done. Leschnei (talk) 13:20, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Sources needed for Days of the Year pages

I see you recently accepted an unsourced pending change regarding WP:BLP info to February 4. I was able to find a source for this info and add it to February 4.

You're probably not aware of this change, but Days of the Year pages are no longer exempt from WP:V and direct sources are required for additions. For details see the WikiProject Days of the Year style guide.

Please do not accept additions to day of year pages where no direct source has been provided on that day of year page. The burden to provide sources for additions to these pages is on the editor who adds or restores material to these pages. Thank you. Toddst1 (talk) 22:00, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

@Toddst1: I've been pretty careful about accepting changes at BLP pages, but obviously I missed that one. Thanks for letting me know. Leschnei (talk) 23:52, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Reviewing

Hi, Please make you check the history of articles before blindly accepting edits, You accepted this edit which was an IP adding a massive programme list - Something that has been reverted for years and is the whole reason why Pending Changes was applied to that article so please be careful infuture, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 14:30, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the correction @Davey2010:, I think that I'll stick to article types that I'm more familiar with until I'm more experienced with reviewing. And, as you suggest, I'll make sure that I look over the history. Leschnei (talk) 14:35, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
Hi, Okie dokie no worries, We all make mistakes so it's all cool :), Happy editing, –Davey2010Talk 14:37, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Ok, can you please add a programming on this article? --2601:205:C100:424D:9AE:F328:1485:589C (talk) 05:14, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Replied on the IPs talk page since I can't ping an IP address. Leschnei (talk) 13:20, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

GOCE February 2018 news

Guild of Copy Editors February 2018 News

Welcome to the February 2018 GOCE newsletter in which you will find Guild updates since the December edition. We got to a great start for the year, holding the backlog at nine months. 100 requests were submitted in the first 6 weeks of the year and were swiftly handled with an average completion time of 9 days.

>>> Sign up for the March Drive! <<<

Coordinator elections: In December, coordinators for the first half of 2018 were elected. Jonesey95 remained as lead coordinator and Corrine, Miniapolis and Tdslk as assistant coordinators. Keira1996 stepped down as assistant coordinator and was replaced by Reidgreg. Thanks to all who participated!

End of year reports were prepared for 2016 and 2017, providing a detailed look at the Guild's long-term progress.

January drive: We set out to remove April, May, and June 2017 from our backlog and all December 2017 Requests (a total of 275 articles). As with previous years, the January drive was an outstanding success and by the end of the month all but 57 of these articles were cleared. Officially, of the 38 who signed up, 21 editors recorded 259 copy edits (490,256 words).

February blitz: This one-week copy-editing blitz ran from 11 through 17 February, focusing on Requests and the last articles tagged in May 2017. At the end of the week there were only 14 pending requests, with none older than 20 days. Of the 11 who signed up, 10 editors completed 35 copy edits (98,538 words).

Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators: Jonesey95, Miniapolis, Corinne, Tdslk, and Reidgreg.

>>> Sign up for the March Drive! <<<
To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:00, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

WikiGnome

Have you ever considered outing yourself as a WikiGnome? All you need do is add {{User wikipedia/WikiGnome}} or {{WikiGnome topicon}} to your user page. Narky Blert (talk) 05:54, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

@Narky Blert: I thought that the whole point of being a gnome was to stay hidden! ;) Maybe I'll add a mushroom to my page. Leschnei (talk) 11:34, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Milivoj Pavlović

Hello. What was the reason to tag words "Serbian language and Yugoslav literature" with disambiguation needed on Milivoje Pavlović page? There is no possibility for disambiguation because it was the official name of the department at the Faculty of Philology in Belgrade... Enjoy the day. --Stripar (talk) 17:25, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

@Stripar: Having a link to Yugoslav literature is confusing to the reader because they don't know which of the different items on the disambiguation page is intended. I understand your point, and since we can't disambiguate the department's name, I would suggest removing the link entirely. Interestingly, Faculty of Philology in Belgrade, does not use the word 'Yugoslav' anywhere. They must have changed their department names to reflect modern political realities.
If you feel that a link to the disambiguation page is best, to reflect the entirety of what is encompassed by 'Yugoslav literature', then please change [[Yugoslav literature]] to [[Yugoslav literature (disambiguation)|Yugoslav literature]]. That will show that the link to the disambiguation page is intentional and that no further disambiguation is required. Thanks, Leschnei (talk) 18:04, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for a fast reply. I got your point. Yes, I also think that solution [[Yugoslav literature (disambiguation)|Yugoslav literature]] is acceptable (although not perfect). Sincerely. --Stripar (talk) 19:08, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
And, for that sake, I do think now that we should have article "Yugoslav literature", even as a historical subject. It was/is a legitimate scholar field since the second half of 19th century... --Stripar (talk) 19:12, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
@Stripar: I'm afraid that I know almost nothing about Yugoslavia, much less its literature. I'll have to leave that article to you! Leschnei (talk) 21:19, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Holy cross college of calinan

Hi thanks for helping and apologise for removing it but you can restore it, your help is appreciated thanks a bunch I created this Wikipedia page of my school because it's the only school in our city that doesn't have article in Wikipedia and quiet new here Rowrow yo Boat (talk) 09:56, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

@Rowrow yo Boat:, thanks for your quick answer and it's great that you're writing an article on this school. If you currently live in the Philippines, I would encourage you to look for some newspaper or magazine articles on the school. It would make a much better article. I'll see what I can find online and put the template back on if I'm unsuccessful. If you find some good sources, feel free to remove it again. Leschnei (talk) 11:44, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
@Leschnei: since our college isn't famous as other it's very difficult to find, I already put the template back on in case for someone, i think this is the last of my edit to the article except adding images, again thank you for being nice, other people wouldn't be like this lol. Rowrow yo Boat (talk) 7:57, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
@Rowrow yo Boat: you're right there's not much but that's not unusual for smaller schools. I added a sentence about accreditation and requested access to a research thesis called "The historical development of the Holy Cross College of Calinan, City of Davao, 1948-1971". I don't know if it is a reliable source or garbage, but hopefully I'll get access. Good luck with the images. Leschnei (talk) 12:11, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
@Leschnei: no it's totally fine and it's very amazing to meet such a nice person like you, thanks a bunch for your help, Hoping to meet you soon again Goodluck to your job. Rowrow yo Boat (talk) 8:21, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

mistake in dab page

FYI, in this change], you added NHRP when it should have been NRHP for the National Register of Historic Places. I have fixed it. MB 02:49, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 24

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of English words of Persian origin, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Nugget (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:33, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you

For your help with the Tasmanian project subject area - much appreciated !! JarrahTree 03:01, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

@JarrahTree: You're welcome! Leschnei (talk) 11:48, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation#RfC: INTDAB links to non-dab pages

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation#RfC: INTDAB links to non-dab pages. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 07:38, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Dyeing

hi i have fixed the page #REDIRECT [[1]] is tagged required clean up,please help.i am seeking help how to remove this cleanup tag,what else should be done.ThanksRajiv Sharma (talk) 13:09, 8 August 2018 (UTC) Hi Leschnei, thanks for your help.Rajiv Sharma (talk) 13:52, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

@RAJIVVASUDEV: you're welcome. Leschnei (talk) 14:01, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi Leschnei this is regarding the @@The inclusion of Dying in the hatnote for Dyeing is to help guide readers. Can we put this tag in Dying if it is really necessary?Rajiv Sharma (talk) 02:49, 9 August 2018 (UTC) Hi Leschnei I have seen the changes and you are right they are appearing better now, thanksRajiv Sharma (talk) 02:44, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

@RAJIVVASUDEV: the hatnotes should be (and are) in both articles. Many people mix up the spellings of 'dyeing' and 'dying'; the hatnotes are designed to get people where they need to be with a minimum of clicks. And PLEASE put new edits at the bottom of the talk page. I keep having to move yours down. Leschnei (talk) 11:42, 9 August 2018 (UTC

Got it, ThanksRajiv Sharma (talk) 17:54, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 August 2018

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:03, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Recent link changes from Popsicle to Popsicle (Disambiguation)

Recently you created a double re-direct situation by changing several hat note links from Popsicle to Popsicle (disambiguation) (which now redirects back to Popsicle). Please note that throughout Wikipedia the references to Popsicle are about even on their intention to mean either Popsicle (brand) or a generic ice pop in addition to a mix of several other meanings. Therefore the solution was to make Popsicle the disambiguation page, as prior to that the brand page was buried. Is this the best way? I don't know, but that's the rationale used. Looking through your edit history it seems you have more experience with dab pages than I do, so I defer. I've never come across a situation where the intended meaning of a word is about split. Lexlex (talk) 10:10, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

A stalker writes: I notice a similar problem at Styrofoam (disambiguation), where there's a stalled move proposal. Certes (talk) 11:16, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
@Lexlex and Certes: I have been following the various disambiguation discussions, including at styrofoam (disambiguation), and the battle over whether (disambiguation) redirects should also lead to set list articles, and it's all a bit of a mess. It seems that the community at large is changing/refining their views on how disambiguation works and how that will guide article titles. I have stayed out of the fray because I'm really not sure what the best (or least worst) solution is.
With respect to Popsicle (brand) and Popsicle (song), I changed the links in the hatnotes according to WP:DPL. By linking to Popsicle (disambiguation), it shows that the editor is intentionally linking to a disambiguation page. The edits really had nothing to do with the question of whether Popsicle or Popsicle (disambiguation) should be the disambiguation page. As Wikipedia grows and becomes more international, I suspect that more articles that were once considered primary will be moved to disambiguated names, like Popsicle (disambiguation), and disambiguation pages (or lists, or whatever) will take the primary name. Leschnei (talk) 14:55, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Incorrect copyright tags

Please familiarise yourself with Wikipedia:Copyright before attempting to tag articles for deletion on the basis of copyright concerns in future. You need to especially familiarise yourself with the concept of a free license - of which the Copyright page handily sets out a list of all of those that are compatible with Wikipedia.

The material used in Rangasyd's article was licensed under CC-BY 4.0, a Wikipedia-compatible license, and was correctly attributed. Your comment on Rangasyd's talk page suggests that not only did you not read either the attribution section or Wikipedia's copyright page, but you don't seem to understand the concept of free licenses at all. This is absolutely not okay for someone doing new page patrol. Rangayd's material is absolutely acceptable for Wikipedia usage - and now someone else has to arrange for the article to be undeleted because you didn't do your homework.

Please do not tag any further articles until you are certain that you understand Wikipedia's copyright policies, especially with reference to freely-licensed material. The Drover's Wife (talk) 07:29, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

@The Drover's Wife, Rangasyd, and RHaworth: I'm sorry for the mistake I made on Paragon Cafe, Katoomba. I saw the copyright notice on the web page and thought it was a problem that needed to corrected. I did not see the attribution notice at the bottom of the wiki pages, and for that, I apologize, and thanks for pointing it out. I will be more careful in the future. Leschnei (talk) 12:47, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
Apology accepted, with thanks. Rangasyd (talk) 14:20, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
Thanks from me, too. The Drover's Wife (talk) 22:07, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Miguel Robles

Hi, how are you Miguelroblesmedina (talk) 19:03, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Pop Song

I would be grateful if you could let me know how to locate rules like the "One blue link per entry" you quoted in your recent reversion summary, as I am keen not to repeat such mistakes. My Favourite Account Talk 18:18, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi @My Favourite Account: The manual of style for disambiguation pages explains the layout, specifically MOS:DABENTRY. The basic idea is to get reader to their intended article with a minimum of clicks, so include the single best link for the topic and keep the description short and to the point. I should have left you an explanation when I changed your edit to Pop Song, sorry about that. Leschnei (talk) 18:29, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

No problem, thanks

My Favourite Account Talk 18:33, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

I have a follow-up question. How would I know what MOS entry is relevant to a given situation without committing to memory, the rules in their entirety? My Favourite Account Talk 18:42, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

@My Favourite Account: Here's the short version; I found it pretty helpful. Mostly I just make mistakes and people correct me, usually politely. Leschnei (talk) 18:48, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
This appears to be specific to Disambiguation, what about Wikipedia rules on the whole?

My Favourite Account Talk 18:51, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Essentially, what I think I need is an abridged version of the Manual of Style

My Favourite Account Talk 18:58, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

@My Favourite Account: I believe that there is an abridged version, though I can't remember where it is, but here are some suggestions. First, make sure you've at least looked through the links left on your talk page. Second, if you want to know about a specific subject, like headings, try searching Wikipedia from the box in the top right with something like WP:headings. The WP: part makes the search specific to instructions and how-tos, rather than regular articles. Third, go to WP:Teahouse or WP:Help desk; they both answer questions, the Teahouse is just slightly more skewed to beginners. I have asked tons of questions at both sites. Finally, as I said above, make edits/mistakes, keep an eye on your talk page and watchlist to see how your edits are changed, and don't take offense when people get snippy. I learned a lot by seeing how my edits were changed and why. Leschnei (talk) 19:02, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

OK thanks, very much appreciated.My Favourite Account Talk 19:54, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

You removed my HFK edit

You removed my edit on HFK where I included Halsey's album, hopeless fountain kingdom. You said the reason for the removal was because there's no indication that hfk stands for hopeless fountain kingdom. But if you type HFK into Google,the entire first page is related to hopeless fountain kingdom, so I am adding it back in. https://www.google.com/search?q=hfk&rlz=1CAHPZQ_enUS749US751&oq=hfk&aqs=chrome..69i57j69i60j35i39j69i60l3.1196j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joey kl22 (talk • contribs) 00:58, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

@Joey kl22:, sorry, I should have been more explicit. Yes, it's all over Google because it's a popular album, but if HFK is an established acronym for the album, then it should be noted in the article. Leschnei (talk) 11:46, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for changing Larry Olsen

I actually appreciate the clean-up - I'm new to large-scale edits, though I used to do smaller edits with a different account long ago. Hopefully it won't be as long as you think till we have a page for him, but I'm very happy for some organizational help in the meantime Mr Kalm (talk) 03:20, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

@Mr Kalm: you're very welcome. Leschnei (talk) 13:31, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Sima Barber

I didn't add that entry. It was already there before I edited the page [2] I merely fixed the broken link. It was added back in June [3]. I merely never verified if what I was fixing was a redlink or not. So you should be informing 220.101.50.18 (talk · contribs). -- 70.51.45.46 (talk) 04:55, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

FWIW, pinging doesn't work with IP editors. Thanks for the reply -- 70.51.45.46 (talk) 05:21, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Buzz

Oh you right: 'Wu Yi' not mentioned in the linked article, but, himself. https://baike.baidu.com/item/%E6%AD%A6%E8%89%BA/41#sub4864610, Đông Minh (talk) 04:45, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

@Đông Minh: Disambiguation pages are intended to guide readers to existing articles. If there is no article discussing Wu Yi, then he should not be listed on the disambiguation page. Leschnei (talk) 13:19, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Marvel Games

Hi Leschnei, about your title move here, even though I understand the ratio, I think that the new title does no longer reflect the content of the table. In fact, this contains many titles published by others and still based on Marvel characters. I think that Marvel Games, as a publishing brand, should have a separate article, similarly to what happens with List of films based on Marvel Comics and Marvel Studios. I would, therefore, encourage you to revert the name of the article and, in case, create a new article for the publisher. What do you think? --Tanonero (msg) 10:59, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, just realised that it wasn't you that made the move. I am going to copy and paste this message to Iftekharahmed96's talk page. --Tanonero (msg) 11:02, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Auchan

About the edit at Auchan, when changed the Target edit, I was hoping that the link would lead to Target Corporation, not a disambiguation page. Jules8527 (talk) 14:29, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

@Jules8527: If you change the wikilink back to [[Target store]] or [[Target Corporation|Target store]], either will link to Target Corporation and look a little better than what is there now. Leschnei (talk) 18:30, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 December 2018

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:35, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

A page you started (The Diggers (Van Gogh)) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating The Diggers (Van Gogh).

I have just reviewed the page, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

Very nice article (and very interesting)!

To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Britishfinance}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Britishfinance (talk) 21:30, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

@Britishfinance: thanks for the post. Your comment is much appreciated. Leschnei (talk) 21:33, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Scott Mitchell

you probably want to revert further, since your revert didn't actually remove anything important. Frietjes (talk) 21:04, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

@Frietjes: Oops! Thanks for that. Leschnei (talk) 22:59, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Looking (disambiguation))

Hi, I put a CSD tag on this because you requested deletion and it was at the wrong title. Cheers, Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 03:35, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

@Rubbish computer: Thank you! Leschnei (talk) 13:04, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
No problem. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 16:09, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

RE: Justice (disambiguation)

OK, thanks!! --SURDUSVII 11:22, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 January 2019

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:50, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Re: Ave Maria

There is no Ave Maria on Libera (choir) because it's in the Libera, Luminosa, and other albums which don't have any pages on WP created. (It's also in Visions (Libera album) but the name of Robert Prizeman is not mentioned.

There are some credible references such as on iTunes, Sheet Music Plus that clearly credit R. Prizeman as the composer. However, I don't see the reference section on the disambiguation page, so I didn't add them. --Thammarith (talk) 09:44, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

@Thammarith: I never doubted that Libera has performed Ave Maria. However, disambiguation pages are supposed to be guides to existing information, to guide readers to the appropriate page if the name they are looking for is ambiguous (like Ave Maria). For that reason, DAB pages shouldn't have new information and definitely no references or other external links. If you would like to add Ave Maria to Libera (choir) (hopefully with a reliable source), it could then be added back to the disambiguation page. I would suggest that you take a look at the links that I put on your talk page and you could read through wp:disambiguation if you would like to learn more about DAB pages. But mostly, just keep editing and don't worry about small mistakes - we all make them and other editors fix them. Leschnei (talk) 13:04, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

GOCE 2018 Annual Report

Guild of Copy Editors 2018 Annual Report
Our 2018 Annual Report is now ready for review.

Highlights:

  • Overview of Backlog-reduction progress;
  • Summary of Drives, Blitzes, and the Requests page;
  • Membership news and results of elections;
  • Annual leaderboard;
  • Plans for 2019.
– Your project coordinators: Miniapolis, Baffle gab1978, Jonesey95, Reidgreg and Tdslk.
To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.


MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:30, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

toggle ref check

Hello, just a note to say that User:Lingzhi2/reviewsourcecheck has been update to add the option to toggle it on or off.

The installed script will add a tab to the drop-down tab at the top, located between the 'watchlist star' and the search box (using the vector.js skin). The tab toggles between "Hide ref check" and "Show ref check" with displaying the errors as the default option. Please do drop me a line if you have any problems or suggestions. Tks. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 15:10, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

  • Sorry to bother you again. After the addition of a toggle option in the tab atop the page, one editor requested a revised version in which the toggle link appears in the "Tools" section of the page's left sidebar. So now there are two versions of this tool. If you prefer the links in the Toolbar section on the side, the slightly altered script is named User:Lingzhi2/reviewsourcecheck-sb.js (just add "-sb" before the ".js"). Finally, both versions should now also store the page state (whether reference errors/warnings are "hidden" or "shown"). The state persists between page loads and between the browser closing and reopening (unless cleared by the user, for example by deleting data in your browser's cache etc.). Huge thanks to User:Evad37 for much coding help. If you have any questions or problems, please drop me a line. Thanks again. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 08:32, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Don't You Think "We're All In It Together" = "We're All In This Together"

Hi Leschnei: Why don't you think that the page We're All In This Together should reference an expression of this sentiment that predates these by 20 years, albeit by talking about being in "it" as opposed to "this". In fact, this reference was made in a film, Brazil, that the British Film Institute called the 54th best British film of all time, the reference is from a not insignificant contribution to world culture. I realize this is picayune but if the purpose of this page is to show different expressions of, as the page says, "a common expression of solidarity" shouldn’t we reference this early use. In fact, the reference you eliminated was clear that the words are not exactly the same and placing it as placed at the end, in the least prominent spot. HighAtop94 (talk) 00:33, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

HighAtop94 I didn't base my edit on the particular phrase that was used or the importance of the linked articles but on the fact this is a disambiguation page. The purpose of a disambiguation is not to show different examples of how a phrase is used but to guide readers to the article that they are looking for. If a reader were interested in the phrase "We're All In It Together" or "We're All In This Together", they wouldn't find any mention of it at Chancellor of the Exchequer, George Osborne, United Kingdom government austerity programme, or Brazil (1985 film). In other words, it would not help the reader at all to send them to those pages. And per WP:DABSISTER, entries generally don't rely on a link to sister projects like wWkiquote. Leschnei (talk) 01:49, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
Well OK I disagree but yield of course. If "...the purpose of the disambiguation is ... to guide readers to the article they are looking for..." then I bet a lot of people remember that line from Brazil, don't really know if the pronoun was "it" or "this" and my entry would have helped them. To help future readers I'm going to mention the George Osborne quote in the talk page where the movie quote already resides, if you delete it I promise I won't bug you about that. And, any chance we can get listed on List of Wikipedia controversies? This is as good as the monkey selfie. HighAtop94 (talk) 02:40, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
I agree that the line from Brazil is very well known. Maybe you could add it to the article; then it would belong on the disambiguation page. As it is, I think that one of the purposes of Wikiquotes is exactly what you stated - to help readers track down quotes and phrases. I'm not sure that we're controversial enough for List of Wikipedia controversies but what the heck! (I promise I won't delete it.) Leschnei (talk) 11:53, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks

You wrote: I have reverted your edit to Thomas Cholmondeley because, per MOS:DABEXT, external links should not be used on disambiguation pages. I reply: Thank you. I did not know this fact.98.243.51.84 (talk) 14:54, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Incels

You are calling all fingers thumbs. On the incel page. Mraids (talk) 12:37, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Mraids@ I'm not sure what you mean and I haven't edited Incel. Black pill is a disambiguation page; it's only purpose is to help readers distinguish between articles with similar titles. Disambiguation pages have very specific guidelines, some of which I listed on your talk page. In you most recent edit, the first and last entries refer to the same thing, I think, although in the first entry Black pill redirects to the suburb in Swansea, Wales.
There is a redirect Black piller that may be useful. Perhaps something like: Black piller, a person who subscribes to an ideology of pure nihilism and fatalism Leschnei (talk) 12:48, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
I've created a redirect, which may help. Certes (talk) 12:59, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
Thanks Certes - that looks like a good solution but I'm not sure that Mraids agrees, as the most recent edit shows. Leschnei (talk) 13:09, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
@Mraids: are you happy that we can just keep the combined entry, without adding that meaning a second time at the top of the list, or should we invite other editors to join us for a talk page discussion? Certes (talk) 13:12, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

You are putting and logical spin on someone else's ideology incels can be women. black pilled means nihilistic fatalism. you are not being neutral. this is from someone that is blackpilled on many things. and come on the term is more than 10 years old you only heard about incels. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mraids (talk • contribs) 13:29, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Mraids (& Certes), I am not trying to put any kind of spin on your contributions; I'm merely trying to fix a disambiguation page. Your views, if backed up by reliable sources, belong in the article, not on the disambiguation page. Think of a disambiguation page as a table of contents or an index - a place to direct you to the page that has the content you're looking for. Disambiguation pages should not provide content that is not in the article itself. Leschnei (talk) 13:41, 25 April 201

there is a total ideological spin on the total incel page .why call incels hateful and hate on them .that has nothing to do with incel and i am not one. I will do a black pill page. and i may take all the hate out of the incel page too. an incel is a person, not a man.

From Mraids's last comment, it sounds as if black pill has a wider meaning covered in articles such as fatalism and nihilism, though neither mentions the term explicitly. My redirect may give a misleading impression that everyone of the black pill persuasion is an incel, in the same way that redirecting Sports to England#Sports would deny that other countries also take part. If I'm right then writing a new article on the wider black pill topic, with a link to Incel explaining the connection, would help. That article could replace my redirect at Black pill (ideology), or if it's the primary topic we could move Black pill to Black pill (disambiguation) and put the article there (and retarget my redirect to it). It also sounds as if Incel may need attention to ensure that it conveys a neutral point of view. Certes (talk) 14:15, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
Certes, that sounds like the best way forward. Mraids, good luck with the article. I hope it work out. Leschnei (talk) 14:56, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Hebo Private School

I can prove it exists because I‘m a student of it. Roooooon (talk) 09:52, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Associative memory (Disambiguation page)

Hello, I would like to know, why did you decide to delete link to Associative model of data from Associative memory disambiguation page? Look at revisions comparison page to remember. Konard (talk) 16:35, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

@Konard:, I removed it because Associative model of data does not even mention the word memory, so it didn't seem to me to be a title that would need disambiguating from 'Associative memory'. Admittedly, I know little about the topic, so if you think it needs to be there, I won't revert you. Leschnei (talk) 21:33, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Bicycle Day

Hi AndrewDressel, why did you revert my edits to Bicycle Day? Your edit summary says 'Remove image spam ', but I had already done that. And in reverting you also removed the other changes that I had made. all according to MOS:DAB. Leschnei (talk) 02:41, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

It must have been a mistake. I'm sorry, and I've undone it. -AndrewDressel (talk) 12:58, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
@AndrewDressel: Thank you! Leschnei (talk) 13:17, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

About Ayman Joumaa (disambiguation) deletion

Thanks for your remarks and guidances, however i want to know how can i add this article Ayman Zakaria Joumaa without the Ayman Joumaa (disambiguation) page. because the both persons we can find them under the same name Ayman Joumaa.

bests --Bachounda (talk) 13:49, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

@Bachounda: first you need to get Ayman Zakaria Joumaa out of draft space; disambiguation pages are navigation guides to existing articles, not drafts. Once the article is 'live', you can change Ayman Joumaa back into a disambiguation page. (It's standard practice to put the disambiguation page at the title without the '(disambiguation)' at the end, if that title doesn't already exist.) Ayman Joumaa (disambiguation) can then be recreated as a redirect to Ayman Joumaa. Leschnei (talk) 13:56, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Mario

Hi. Did you notice that with your revert here you were not removing a reference, as you state in your summary, but an explanatory note which was found necessary and useful? Do you still think it doesn't belong there, because i think anything which makes the encyclopaedia easier to use is probably to the good. Happy days, LindsayHello 15:23, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

@LindsayH: Yes, I did notice that but I don't agree that it's necessary. The whole point of a disambiguation page is to help the reader arrive at the correct existing article from a choice of articles with similar titles. In my opinion adding more text to the page to discuss the meaning of 'Bros.' and how to pronounce it doesn't really further that goal. Having said that, this is just my opinion; I don't think that there is anything in the MOS that specifically addresses explanatory notes and I won't start an edit war over it. If you think that the note is important, go ahead and revert my edit. If future editors agree with you then the note will stay! Leschnei (talk) 17:58, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Last Night I dreamt of San Pedro

What was the name of the song then? I know its part of the lyrics but what was the songs name?101.178.163.219 (talk) 03:13, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

I answered on your talk page. Leschnei (talk) 12:03, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Solstice

Hi Leschnei. Regarding your recent reversions on the Solstice disambiguation page - isn't this criterion 'one blue link per item' a bit unsteady? This way an item could never find a start on Wikipedia ... Thanks in forward for your answer ... marcus~nlwiki (talk) 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Marcus~nlwiki@ thanks for your question. As I understand it (from reading wp:disambiguation and wp:mosdab), disambiguation pages are just navigation aids, like the index of a book; their sole purpose is to help readers find the correct article when different topics have similar titles. It follows from this (to my mind) that content on disambiguation pages should follow content in articles, not the other way around. As stated in MOS:DABNOLINK, "An entry without a blue link is useless for further navigation" (if a topic isn't mentioned in a book, it has no business being listed in the index). Most of the other rules - one blue link, don't pipe, brief description, etc - merely improve the reader's chance of getting to their desired article quickly (by keeping the page easy to scan). There are certainly cases where two blue links are included, but in general it is better to keep things simple by providing readers with one blue link per topic.
Entries on disambiguation pages can be blue links, red links, or un-linked mentions, as long as there is a link to an article that describes (or at least mentions) the title of the entry. Leschnei (talk) 15:08, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Montjuïc (disambiguation)

Thanks for your help with this disambiguation page. I've updated it to include a new article on Montjuic (Girona). Since you seem to know about disambiguation pages, I write to ask if it would be appropriate to provide a link to the Catalan disambiguation of the same name? And how to do that? I seem to recall there is a way to wikilink pages from other languages in wikipedia, besides the bare html link. Here is the link to the Catalan page. Thx, Bdushaw (talk) 06:46, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Bebe Daniels

I am curious why you removed the wikilink for Bebe Daniels in the article for She's a Sheik. I am trying to learn more about the intricacies of editing on Wikipedia. Thank you bobdog54 (talk) 19:41, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

@Bobdog54: disambiguation pages have different guidelines than other pages. Since they're merely navigation guides intended to distinguish between articles with similar titles, than it is generally sufficient to link to the disambiguated title (She's a Sheik, in this case). Short descriptions, rather than additional links, are often given to help readers determine which article they want, but they aren't linked because they don't need to be disambiguated from the primary topic/title.
If the entry isn't the title of an article (as in the song "Sheik" by ZZ Top) or it is red-linked (to pretend, Sheik (ZZ Top song)), than a 'target link' is needed, to an article that mentions "Sheik" by ZZ Top or links to Sheik (ZZ Top song). If there were no article for She's a Sheik, than Bebe Daniels would be an appropriate target link.
You can read more than you ever wanted to know at WP:disambiguation and MOS:disambiguation, and I'm happy to help where I can. Leschnei (talk) 20:55, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Zeeshan Khan

I'm extremely sorry for the mistakes and the disturbance I caused due to my editiong. I'll be more careful from the next time onwards. Thanks a lot for your resourceful guidelines which will help me in editing wikipedia pages in the future. Thank you --Momrockzz (talk) 05:31, 3 November 2019 (UTC)Momrockzz

@Momrockzz, don't worry - there's a lot to learn and every new editor makes mistakes. Leschnei (talk) 11:32, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

TV station disambiguation

Hello Leschnei. I have seen the messages that you'e been leaving on my user talk page regarding my edits for pages such as CBS 2, NBC 4, ABC 7, Fox 11, etc. On some of the stations, I have gone back to edit the lists taking into account of having two equal signs (==) rather that three (===), having one blue link per line, and keeping the descriptions brief. I've also decided to have it grouped into two sections: "Current affiliates" and "Formerly affiliated." For the former, I sometimes had two separated subsections for owned-and-operated stations and current affiliates. For the latter, I've been going back to remove the stations current status (new affiliation, gone independent or defunct) and I've also been using "(#### to ####)" to specify the years when the station was affiliated with its former network. I hope that my new edits for these stations are acceptable and I apologize for not getting back to soon and for my questionable edits. Thank you. FreewayDan (talk) 00:51, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

@FreewayDan: I took a peek at a few of the pages and they look great. It should be much easier for readers to scan for the article that they want. Thanks for letting me know. Leschnei (talk) 02:19, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Call of the Wild (disambiguation)

Hi. You are right. Maybe I should earlier put some information in the wiki article : The Call of the Wild is a 1903 novel by Jack London. TIA --Adam majewski (talk) 17:19, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

@Adam majewski: Since Guy Grieve and his novel aren't mentioned in any article, and they don't appear to meet the standards of wp:notability, they probably don't belong in Wikipedia at this time. It/they may become more notable with time. Leschnei (talk) 23:34, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Goody - Protagonist

Hi Carlwev, I can only speak for myself, but the reason that I previously removed hero and protagonist from the Goody DAB page is because the terms goody and goodie do not appear anywhere in these articles (WP:DABRELATED), so readers following those links in hopes of finding out more about the term, would be disappointed. External links are not used because DAB pages are supposed to direct readers to existing content (WP:DABREF). Leschnei (talk) 14:02, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing this up, I can understand your point. But I don't think it's necessary for all terms coming in from disambiguation pages and/or redirects to be mentioned at the target page. Many topics could have a large number or alternative terms/words referring to them that also link from disambiguation pages, I'm not sure it is necessary to list all of them at the main article. As a child I understood the concept of a "goody" in a story but I was completely unfamiliar with the word "protagonist" which is the closest meaning. My thoughts were if a child or perhaps also a person who does not speak English as a first language wishes to look for the topic "protagonist" they may not know which term to use to search. I cannot see any harm in listing protagonist on the goody disambiguation page, I thought it was the main point of disambiguation pages. BTW Some time in the past a user said something along the lines of, they were not familiar with the word goody used to mean "protagonist" and doubted it had this meaning. I added the reference to the OED to show it was used in this way, although I thought may have been a bit unnecessary for a disambiguation, but it showed it was correct, if anyone doubted it. Also for example, compare to.
  1. On the Goody disambiguation page it also lists Confectionary and Candy as possible meanings, those articles also have no mention of the word goody/goodies.
  2. Baddie - The disambiguation page lists "villian and "antagonist" as a possible meanings. But those articles do not mention the word "baddie" (BTW I added antagonist to this disambiguation page, but villain was added by someone else). It also lists badminton as a meaning, but that article doesn't mention Baddie either.
  3. I was trying to think of other slang/informal words children or non-native English speaking users may use before they know the "formal" word. Boob and tit are disambiguation pages that list breast, but that article does not mention those slang/informal words words either. In fact Boob page mentions breast as the main meaning, but still the page on breast does not mention boob.
  4. Also, you me or someone else could simply add the term "goody" to the protagonist page, with the OED reference. I may do this in the future. I read the links to disambiguation page usage you posted above, it would make sense.  Carlwev  11:31, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
@Carlwev: those are all good points and I don't disagree with any of them. I was drawn to your edit because of the reference; without it I probably would have passed it right by. In general, I prefer to leave the dictionary definitions to the Wiktionary link because editors add the most ridiculous definitions to DAB pages, but I don't feel strongly enough about 'goody' to argue about it. Oddly enough, in reference to your list above, one of the slang uses of 'goody' is 'boob' or 'tit', used in the 1970s - it's a funny old world. Leschnei (talk) 22:13, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Toyota Gazoo Racing

The change is fine, thought could we use Toyota Gazoo Racing SA? That is what's used in the results section of 2019 Dakar Rally at least. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.80.109.163 (talk) 17:48, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Karnak House

(Undid revision 917165780 by Atrivo (talk), Karnak House not mentioned in the linked article) Please observe the caption of the illustration of the article. Perhaps if my edit does irritate you, a better complaint might be significance.

@Atrivo: I apologize for not leaving a message on your talk page; I should have done so. Disambiguation pages are navigation aids to help readers find existing content. With that in mind, each entry should have an article or be mentioned in an existing article. I could not find any mention of 'Karnak' in Nathia Gali, including in the figure legends. I'm not sure which illustration/caption you are referring to.
Also, since disambiguation pages are for existing articles only, external links and references are not used. Those links/references should go in the linked article. Leschnei (talk) 19:36, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Avalon, Matthew Ellis

Moved to User talk:Brentx45

Wesertal - Oberweser - Wahlsburg

You asked about what happened to these local communities. In fact, until Dec 31., 2019 there have been Oberweser and Wahlsburg next to each other. From Jan 1, 2020 they bulid the new local community Wesertal. Wahlsburg and Oberweser do not longer exist. Niesy74 (talk) 17:56, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Niesy74, do you have a source, a newspaper or something, that explains this merger? It wouldn't have to be in German. If so, I think that it would be important to add it. There's a source attached to the German Wesertal article, but I can't read it! I would also suggest rephrasing the sentence in both Wahlsburg and Oberweser to something like, "On January 1, 2020, Oberweser merged with neighboring Wahlsburg to form the municipality of Wesertal [de]." Leschnei (talk) 00:36, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
I have only german news articles (https://www.hna.de/lokales/hofgeismar/oberweser-ort103169/fusion-von-wahlsburg-und-oberweser-endspurt-in-rathaeusern-13377814.html). Wesertal has only about 5,000 people living there, so I don't think, there's any english language source for it. But I found one article about the stolen town signs, that tells a bit about the merger, too (https://www.en24.news/2020/01/hessen-town-signs-stolen-confusion-about-community-without-a-name.html) I know, as a german, my english is not the best. So if you think rephrasing would be a good idea, I'd like to ask you to do it.Niesy74 (talk) 22:16, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
Niesy74, thanks for the reference. I made the changes to Wahlsburg and Oberweser. I also added a second reference its Google translation suggested that it was useful. If you don't think that the reference is a good one, feel free to remove it. Leschnei (talk) 01:24, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Dab links...

Hello, regarding a few recent edits you made (this one being an example), if Five Points (disambiguation) simply redirects to Five Points, or this one with the same situation with Grandview Heights, Alberta (disambiguation) simply redirecting to Grandview Heights, Alberta, my understanding was to reduce the use of double redirects... would it not be a better use of the wiki's bandwidth to link them as [[Five Points|Five Points (disambiguation)]] if our purpose is continuity for the non-editor reader? I will change my habits if I am wrong, but it seems silly to purposely introduce a double redirect for the reader's sake instead of just moving the article itself to the (disambiguation) titles... have I been gone for too long? - Adolphus79 (talk) 02:05, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Adolphus79, the reasoning is more fully described here but basically, when the link is intentional, it should always go thorough an article title that includes '(disambiguation)', even if that is a redirect. That tells editors that the link is intentional. In articles, the link is generally piped to remove the part in parentheses. On DAB pages, the convention is to show the full article title without piping, hence the '(disambiguation)' in Five Points (disambiguation) and Grandview Heights, Alberta (disambiguation). A greater use of bandwidth perhaps but a big payoff in not wasting editors' time re-checking the same DAB links over and over. Leschnei (talk) 13:18, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
ok... that's just silly, instead of simply moving Five Points to Five Points (disambiguation), the community has decided it is better to have a double redirect? I will change my editing patterns in the future to reflect this... I came back with the intention of simply expanding the scope of the 'pedia, not to argue silly rules and guidelines anymore (lol)... feel free to cleanup behind me if I missed anything, I'll just go back to creating missing articles... :) - Adolphus79 (talk) 22:20, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

A brownie for you!

Thank you for fixing the DAB link problem at Sandringham whereby one of my references included a link to The Queen (which I thought was the article for Elizabeth II) when I added a reference to Sandringham Summit. My thinking was I needed a reference or two to justify its inclusion, but I guess per MOS:DAB, there are no notability or verifiability requirements for DAB pages as they're just that—navigation aids to existing articles? Doug Mehus T·C 15:44, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
Doug Mehus, yes, it's assumed that the article or article section will contain references, and in the case of Sandringham Summit, the assumption is valid! Leschnei (talk) 23:30, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Re: Johnny Belinda...

Hello Leschnei! I have reverted your editing-out the additional references to other versions of the play/films/musical. Since when does Wikipedia ONLY show information that links to other Wikipedia articles? Otherwise I do not understand your removal of the additional information, especially since I included references. Please explain. Cheers! Shir-El too 21:59, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Oops! NOW I understand your point! Reverted the revert. But should not the reader be referred to additional versions/productions? Cheers! Shir-El too 22:12, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
Shir-El too, the reader definitely should be referred to additional versions, but not from the DAB page. The entire purpose of a DAB page is to help readers navigate to existing information. The Johnny Belinda (play) article is the right place for that info, and I see you've added it there. I have added the text "including a list of adaptations" to the entry for Johnny Belinda (play) on the Johnny Belinda page, to let readers know that there are other versions. I would also suggest that the 1968 musical play could be mentioned on Mavor Moore's page (if you think it's notable). It could then be added to Johnny Belinda with Mavor Moore as the existing page link. Leschnei (talk) 01:48, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
Thank you, I appreciate it, and will follow up on the Mavor Moore page. Cheers! Shir-El too 17:01, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

PS Is there enough info to remove the 'Stub' from the play page? Shir-El too 17:04, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Shir-El too, probably not, I think that it needs to be filled out more. You could ask for a second opinion at the Help desk; determining when a stub is no longer a stub is not something that I have experience with. I've made some suggestions for improving the article on the talk page for the play. Leschnei (talk) 18:04, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
Thank you again! All the Best, Shir-El too 22:13, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Merger discussion for Penis (disambiguation)

An article that you have been involved in editing—Penis (disambiguation)—has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Doug Mehus T·C 19:24, 11 February 2020 (UTC)


Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Coby

No idea what you were trying to do with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Coby, but your deletion rationale makes no sense. it's a valid spelling with many uses, and it's a disambiguation page so there shouldn't be incoming links. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 01:30, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

TenPoundHammer, it's not typical for disambiguation redirects to be spelled in this way (Disambiguation instead of disambiguation). It's not doing any harm by existing but it's not accomplishing anything either, so I thought that it might as well be deleted. And disambiguation definitely have incoming links, for example on other disambiguation pages (WP:INTDABLINK). Leschnei (talk) 01:35, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

TenPoundHammer, I totally screwed up. The RFD was intended for Coby (Disambiguation), not Coby. Sorry about the error. Leschnei (talk) 01:42, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

review source check script

Apparently the sidebar version of User:Lingzhi2/reviewsourcecheck has been broken for a long while. It should be fixed now. Sorry for the inconvenience. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 01:14, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Leschnei/Archive_2&oldid=1201486339"