User talk:Bkonrad/Archive 74

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 70 ← Archive 72 Archive 73 Archive 74 Archive 75 Archive 76 → Archive 80

The Signpost: 2 May 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:08, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Lorino, reasons not assumptions

After some geographical research regarding Lorino I found out that the inhabited localty in Chukotka is by far the primary topic and decided that the two disambiguations were bulky. In the Italian Wikipedia Lorino is straight away the place in Chukotka and most of the fractions of the Ferentillo valley have been deemed too unimportant to even have links. Not even Macenano, the biggest fraction, has its own article and only Gabbio has a red link. Please compare also Category:Lorino with Lorino Italy in Wikimedia Commons. Xufanc (talk) 23:39, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation

Hi,

I'm new and I noticed you made some corrections on links to disambiguation pages. What's the procedure for disambiguation; do you only link to the page when there is a further link to go to?

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Apron57 (talk • contribs) 15:35, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

@Apron57: Basically use only one blue link per entry on the disambiguation and the linked article should mention the term (i.e., someone arriving at the disambiguation page for term X is not likely to be looking to follow a link to an article that contains no information about that term. See WP:Disambiguation and WP:MOSDAB for more details. older ≠ wiser 16:06, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 May 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:33, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

A year ago ...
older≠wiser
... you were recipient
no. 1215 of Precious,
a prize of QAI!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:24, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

I-Town

There are many I-Towns in Andhra Pradesh in different cities.--Vin09 (talk) 15:02, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Do they have articles or any mention in other articles? older ≠ wiser 17:29, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
As of now no other wiki article has this name.--Vin09 (talk) 17:37, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
So without anything to disambiguate, there is no need for a disambiguation page. older ≠ wiser 17:42, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Corn

I explained why I made my changes on Talk:Corn. Please explain why you simply reverted without discussion. Nicknack009 (talk) 20:58, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

I did explain. Your undiscussed changes overturned the results of a previous move discussion. A conversation between a very small number of editors on an unrelated page is hardly enough to establish a new consensus. older ≠ wiser 21:46, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 May 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:12, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

2016 Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Community Survey

The Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation has appointed a committee to lead the search for the foundation’s next Executive Director. One of our first tasks is to write the job description of the executive director position, and we are asking for input from the Wikimedia community. Please take a few minutes and complete this survey to help us better understand community and staff expectations for the Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director.

Thank you, The Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Steering Committee via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:48, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 05 June 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:12, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Lawyer

Please stop adding Lawyer to Doctor; it is a doctorate degree and not an honorary title, and lawyers are almost never adressed as such. As such, it does not belong on the page. If we list every doctorate, the page would be miles long. Thank you. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 10:55, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Please stop removing it. I've never said it was an honorary degree, and the usage as a TITLE is fairly clearly described in the article (with even better background here. I see no reason to gloss over different cultural practices. Even if it the usage is in decline, there is historical relevance to mention the usage. older ≠ wiser 11:03, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
It is the degree allowing you to carry the title 'doctor'; it is not a title that comes with the occupation. Therefor it falls under any ohter doctorate degree, and the page does not list separate degrees (there are just too many of them). Do not add it again. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 15:35, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
That makes little sense. There are clear descriptions that some lawyers in some parts of the world are traditionally addressed with the title, without necessary reference to the degree. But whatever, you seem to insist on owning the page. older ≠ wiser 15:43, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
FINAL WARNING. You need to seek consensus for your change! Do not keep edit warring, as you will be blocked! -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 15:38, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
Pot, kettle, black. older ≠ wiser 15:43, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
It is always the change that needs consensus once it has been reverted. Bear that in mind. So take it to the talk page and come up with a valid reasoning. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 15:46, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Edit war on Doctor

Please stop edit warring on Doctor. Take it to the talk page. -- GB fan 16:09, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Paul Schaefer

So I assume you approve of what I did? You didn't change any of what I had done before I got back to fix a couple of things I did wrong.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 19:23, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 15 June 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:57, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Director

Do not make any further changes to Director. If you don't consider that roles then write it in a form as Director, Technical or Director (Technical). Or Let me write it. Also all the fields that is Business, Arts/Design and Sci/Tech should be together. And all other categories should be on one side. Right or not?~~SB~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saadullah Bhatti (talk • contribs) 16:12, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, all of the entries for roles assumed by humans should be together, which is why your edit is unacceptable. Besides, the entry is NOT even solely about the science and technology role. older ≠ wiser 16:15, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
My entry is not unacceptable, but the thing is you are not getting the things understand. As I have also said previously in message that as Technical; the word shows itslef belonging to Technology or Science just like Creative is for Arts or a Design. Simply the thing is that!!
Now I think any third party over the Wikipedia should notice and decide over this that whether its any other minor role or its really an Industrial role. Saadullah Bhatti (talk) 16:30, 24 June 2016 (UTC)SBSaadullah Bhatti (talk) 16:30, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
Why should an entry that is 1) about a role performed by persons and 2) that is not solely (or even primarily) about science and technology be grouped into a subsection of topics that are not about roles? older ≠ wiser 16:33, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
I came to say thanks for a delete but saw the above. I'll have a look...Widefox; talk 07:09, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
I agree with you about the incorrect edit of Saadullah Bhatti. I've warned them. Next time pls ask someone to step in as I don't have to tell you that you're both over the 3RR brightline. Luckily we have IAR which prevents me from reporting either of you. Widefox; talk 07:25, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Chief of the General Staff

Chief of the General Staff effectively is a disambiguation page, and a look at its "what links here" shews that a lot of links need disambiguating. DuncanHill (talk) 02:02, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

@DuncanHill: You are welcome to try. Some one had put the somewhat moronic {{disambiguation-stop}} template on the page which has the effect of stopping links to the page from showing up in reports of disambiguation pages with links. I changed it to a normal dab template then saw what a mess the page was and thought it might be better off as a set index. older ≠ wiser 02:12, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
I've never understood the point of set indices - they just look like dab pages which are pretending not to be dab pages. The ship ones attract loads of bad incoming links. I probably will have a bash at the CGS page at some point. DuncanHill (talk) 02:31, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Delectable signature

I've just run across your ~~~~ on the MoS talk page. It gave me a good chuckle and positively made my morning. (It's true, too, alas, as well I know.) No reply needed. I just wanted to thank you for brightening my day. Tim riley talk 11:20, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bkonrad/Archive_74&oldid=1140765790"