User talk:Some Gadget Geek/2016/March

Archives

citation for estelle parsons

Thank you. I'll get a citation and reenter the information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dmitchellcae (talk • contribs) 01:03, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reentered information for Estelle Parsons

I have the citations but I am unable to edit the References: broadway.com/buzz/awards/tony-awards/nominees/496/Estelle-parsons accessed 3/1/2016 variety.com/2013/legit/review/regional-legit-review-the-velocity-of-autumn/20665187 accessed 3/1/2016 dmitchellcaeDmitchellcae (talk) 05:14, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Parsons entry

Never mind! It's not that important to me after entering it twice and having it removed for formatting. It's disturbing that technology is over ruling content. Sad commentary on the state of the world when information is less important than the medium. dmitchellcae — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dmitchellcae (talk • contribs) 16:17, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Buckley

You reverted my change to this article without basis. If you read the MOS, it clearly states that it is not necessary to create an article before creating a link to it, even in a disambiguation page. See MOS:DABRL. Your statement in the edit summary "we do not want redlinks in disambiguation pages" sounds like your personal opinion but does not reflect the community consensus as reflected in the MOS. Even WP:RED talks about the usefulness of redlinks in some cases:

"It is useful in editing article text to create a red link to indicate that a page will be created soon or that an article should be created for the topic because the subject is notable and verifiable. One study conducted in 2008 showed that red links helped Wikipedia grow.[1] Follow-up work on this indicated that the creation of red links prevents new pages from being orphaned from the start.[2]"

@Mb66w: OK, I get it. You can add the red link if you want, but please consider creating the article asap. I'll probably do it myself, if I can :-D <<< SOME GADGET GEEK >>> (talk) 18:20, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted and asked Mb66w to discuss this on the article talk page per WP:BRD. There we can discuss together whether the appearance of the same redlink in other disambiguation pages and lists meets the spririt and purpose of MOS:DABRL. NebY (talk) 19:02, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your thoughts on primary topic for Aparna

Hi there - since you were recently involved in changing the redirect for Aparna, I'd like to get your input on the discussion at Talk:Aparna (disambiguation) about the primary topic (or lack thereof) before I potentially make a page move. Thanks! -- Natalya 16:25, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Help appreciated

Hello, I 'm one of the two (Espreon the other) administrators of the Gothic wiki. Don't worry abput your experimentation, we rarely ban people and you didn't have bad intentions. You asked if you could help us with technical issues. In fact you can. Please, see our reaction on your Gothic talk page: https://got.wikipedia.org/wiki/%F0%90%8C%BD%F0%90%8C%B9%F0%90%8C%BF%F0%90%8D%84%F0%90%8C%B0%F0%90%8C%BD%F0%90%8C%B3%F0%90%8C%B9%F0%90%8D%83_%F0%90%8C%B2%F0%90%8C%B0%F0%90%8D%85%F0%90%8C%B0%F0%90%8C%BF%F0%90%8D%82%F0%90%8C%B3%F0%90%8C%BE%F0%90%8C%B0:Some_Gadget_Geek

Bokareis (talk) 17:21, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

check response. You don't really need to be able to read Gothic to know how to make it possible that this script https://got.wikipedia.org/wiki/%F0%90%8C%BD%F0%90%8C%B9%F0%90%8C%BF%F0%90%8D%84%F0%90%8C%B0%F0%90%8C%BD%F0%90%8C%B3%F0%90%8D%83:PiRSquared17/gothic.js displays the first letter in each phrase with a capital letter. We already did the work of letting it convert Gothic letters to Latin, but nobody of us knows how to make the first letter in each phrase a capital letter, scripting knowledge is needed for that. All users can change the script and we would be very thankful if you could help us out. Bokareis (talk) 23:14, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

March 2016

Thank you for making a report about Maxting2003 (talk · contribs · block log) on Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Reporting and removing vandalism is vital to the functioning of Wikipedia and all users are encouraged to revert, warn, and report vandalism. However, it appears that the editor you reported may not have engaged in vandalism, or the user was not sufficiently or appropriately warned. Please note there is a difference between vandalism and unhelpful or misguided edits made in good faith. If the user continues to vandalise after a recent final warning, please re-report it. Great to see you're keen and thanks for your assistance - but note that having been warned twice and not vandalised again since their previous warning, an AIV report is premature here. Mike1901 (talk) 16:03, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tesla Electric Car

I'm not sure if you're aware or not, but if you want a redirect to point somewhere else, it's usually better to just WP:BEBOLD and retarget it yourself (unless, of course, you aren't sure where it should go). If your action is contested, then WP:RFD would be a good place to get the opinion of others. When the retarget was obvious, like the case of Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 March 27#Tesla Electric Car, there really isn't much point in listing it at WP:RFD. Happy editing! -- Tavix ^(talk) 15:03, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]