User talk:Bkonrad/Archive 85

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 80

←

Archive 83

→

Wimpstone

The one in Devon has a different name, Whympston, Wimpstone appears to be former alternative name, wouldn't the redirect (with the hatnote) work better than the DAB page with only 2 items. As it was until 5 months ago. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:19, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

I dunno. Seems a stretch to give primary topic status to Whitchurch, Warwickshire for Wimpstone where the term is mentioned only as one component of what is already described as a small hamlet. Google books seems to give far more prominent mentions of the historic manor in Devon. older ≠ wiser 17:35, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Interesting, I'd note that a Google search returns results for the Warwickshire one, but yes you're right there is a lot more about the one in Devon as "Wimpstone". Maybe it should go to RFD? Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:40, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Since there are no extremely strong indications that either is clearly the primary topic for the term, I think a disambiguation page is appropriate per WP:NOPRIMARY. older ≠ wiser 20:25, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

OK, I'll leave it for now, if we create an article on the Warwickshire one, or add substantial content to Whitchurch, Warwickshire on it, then we can make do with a hatnote, but I'll just leave it for now. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:57, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

State cessions

What definition of "modern-day" do you use in this edit? Nyttend (talk) 00:03, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

The states described are "modern-day" entities. Virginia never exercised control over anything more than a handful of river settlements in Illinois and Indiana. It's claim was just a claim. older ≠ wiser 00:42, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation

Thanks for your note, but I don't quite understand on 1980s in music and Music history of the United States in the 1980s I changed the link from Unconditional love_(disambiguation) to Unconditional Love (Donna Summer song) & the others similarlarly unless something has gone wrong with the DisamAssist software. I will investigate.— Rod ^talk 19:39, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

It (Disam Assist) has just done a similar thing redirecting Trevor Johnson (disambiguation) to Trevor Johnson which I know is wrong and I can't work out what went wrong or how to roll it back. I'm going to stop using gadget & any help with undoing the edit I inadvertently did would be appreciated.— Rod ^talk 19:50, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Brant

Why did you revert this edit? --Iiii I I I (talk) 22:34, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Sorry. I shouldn't have reverted. I was using small screen and at first glance it looked to be vandalism. I partially restored your edit in subsequent edits.

Mitchell v. United States

You're piling up the cases in there like a night court backlog. Nice work! Randy Kryn (talk) 14:35, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Explain deletions

Hi! I notice as an admin you have been deleting my edits about periodicity. Could you please explain your decision? What could I potentially do differently to gain credibility? I am intent on following guidelines. I am also intent on adding relevant and correct information about periodicity to that page (yes I accidentally conflated periodicity with wavelength, that would be fixed). My research area is in signal processing/recognition, digital additive synthesis, and mathematical music theory. Periodicity is huge here. Thanks for the help,

RB — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.60.34.63 (talk) 09:24, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Periodicity is a disambiguation page, not an article. The entries should be short, just enough to enable readers to quickly find the topic they are looking for. older ≠ wiser 09:32, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Signpost issue 4 – 29 March 2018

Op-ed: Death knell for The Signpost?

News and notes: Wiki Conference roundup and new appointments.

Arbitration report: Ironing out issues in infoboxes; not sure yet about New Jersey; and an administrator who probably wasn't uncivil to a sockpuppet.

In the media: The media on Wikipedia's workings: the good and not-so-good

Traffic report: Real sports, real women and an imaginary country: what's on top for Wikipedia readers

Featured content: Animals, Ships, and Songs

Technology report: Timeless skin review by Force Radical.

Special report: ACTRIAL wrap-up.

Humour: WikiWorld Reruns

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:49, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

subst template per documentation

Hi Bkonrad, I'm curious about why you are removing {{refer}} templates in disambiguation pages. I have been using Dabfix which adds the template, and if that's wrong, I'd like to understand why. Thanks, Leschnei (talk) 22:19, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

See the documentation for template:refer which says This template should always be substituted. If Dabfix didn't do that, I'd say it is an error. Dabfix is far from perfect and should always be used with editorial discretion. older ≠ wiser 23:36, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Ah, I see the problem now. I'll make sure that it says {{subst:refer}} and not {{refer}}. Thanks for the help, Leschnei (talk) 00:59, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

thanXmas

Thanks for your edit to Christmas (disambiguation), but i was worried about breaking links to Christmas (disambiguation)#People with the given name and Christmas (disambiguation)#Fictional, plus i suspect these sections should have more entries, even if i can't think of any right now.

If we're not worried about breaking links to subsections, what do you think about changing the "Other uses" subsection header to "People named Christmas"?

--71.121.143.120 (talk) 20:43, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Amazon

Why did you restore a contentious revision to Amazon when there is no consensus about it?

I voluntarily backed out of shaping the disambiguation page to closer match what I'm arguing for. I replaced it with a neutral state that doesn't conform to either side's preferred version but is nonetheless functional and unsurprising by its antiseptic and impartial presentation. You respond by restoring another editor's preferred version despite the fact that (a) the discussion isn't resolved in favor of that version, and (b) you don't even weigh in on the discussion with any argument (just appealing vaguely to "guidelines").

That's more than a little distasteful. Please voluntarily back out these changes to revert to the neutral form. -- C. A. Russell (talk) 17:57, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

If anything, if say I restored it to version before any concerns were raised. Considering you have not garnered any support at all for your position, and several highly experienced editors opposing, I don't see any reason to change. older ≠ wiser 18:27, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

"I restored it to version before any concerns were raised" is verifiably untrue.

And like User:Xezbeth, you seem to blatantly synthesizing a quorum that doesn't exist, viz Xezbeth's first contribution to this topic: "the discussion where you've been told why you're wrong by three different editors".

At the time of that comment, the people involved in the discussion were, in order: Fyrael, me, PamD, and Certes.

So where does that notion come from? Are you under the impression that PamD is arguing in favor of Fyrael's revision and against mine? Do you think that Certes is? Because they're not.

That leaves Fyrael. Fyrael certainly doesn't account for three persons. Let's suppose that number is supposed to include the years-old discussion that took place before, because maybe that's a factor? The problem is, that discussion involves exactly two people besides those already listed above, neither one of whom is voicing an opinion that comports with the claim, either.

Please restore the page to the neutral version. And please, after an attempt to back off and reach consensus, do not exacerbate a contentious situation by forcefully seizing the article to push one side's preferred version. -- C. A. Russell (talk) 19:11, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Sorry. You are wrong. And insulting language does not help advance your arguments. older ≠ wiser 19:22, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Responding to particulars, your edit removed any indication of which entries are the most commonly meanings of "Amazon". User:PamD said t's a complicated situation where the plural has a Primary topic and the singular doesn't, but I'd say that the river, the tribe and the company should all three appear at the top of the page as the major uses. Can you honestly say that supports your position?

Similarly, after some analysis, User:Certes concludes It seems that the main meanings, worth highlighting in the lead, are the company, the river, the people and perhaps the rainforest. Again, can you honestly say that supports your position. Both of them, as well as User:Fyrael and User:Xezbeth support organization that is explicitly at odds with both your preferred edit as well as your purportedly "neutral" edit. older ≠ wiser 19:32, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

That is not my position, and that's not an accurate summary of the events as they happened. You are (perhaps intentionally, perhaps not) outwardly behaving in a way that's indistinguishable from someone who repeats things that are verifiably untrue knowing that the vast majority of anyone looking on won't actually go on to verify things for themselves.

The edit you link to above is the one put in place as a response to a no-consensus deadlock. It neither takes a side in favor of Fyrael's preferred version, nor does it take the side of my preferred version. As far as disambiguation pages go, it's a completely antiseptic rundown that almost could have been generated by a machine.

Your decision to take things on to push in an already contentious situation is not cool, and mischaracterizing the events involved in that situation is *extremely* uncool. Don't do shit like that. -- C. A. Russell (talk) 19:52, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

The only mischaracterization and "uncool" shit going down is by one party alone (and it's not me). older ≠ wiser 19:57, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Let's do this: if you're not mischaracterizing my position here, how about you lay it out for me? Surely if you've got it right, then there will be no dispute from me about it, and if it matches the image you've been trying to pass off here, then it will be obvious, right? Don't worry about why it's flawed. Let's just make sure we're all operating in a shared reality.

So what is my actual position here? -- C. A. Russell (talk) 20:04, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

(ec) For the avoidance of doubt, I think that there is no primary topic and that Amazon should remain a disambiguation page. Of the three main meanings I identified, the tribe (Amazons) has the fewest page views. Certes (talk) 20:07, 20 April 2018 (UTC)