Watch your reverts carefully! edit

Vasily Zavoyko: If you found it unnecessary to insert a disamb. page, - fine, - but please be more careful not to delete other good changes. This is a note to you. Thank you! Cotling (talk) 14:47, 1 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Please stop deleting relevant content without valid reason. I'm referring to specifically to the Medina_(disambiguation) page.

You reverted my changes, and I improved the content, but you reverted again. In both cases without stating a valid reason. People searching for this music is likely to end up on this page. Not only is Medina part of the title and the name of the band, but the chorus repeats "Medina" over and over again.

Please stop reverting relentlessly, or at least explain why you think it doesn't belong. Thank you in advance. 149.88.17.134 (talk) 19:10, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, but no, your edit was not an improvement. Please review WP:MOSDAB; in particular, WP:DABONE and WP:DABMENTION and MOS:DABNOENTRY. olderwiser 19:30, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
Bro please stop this. You deleted A.FLOCK's edit man. He made it better. I tried to find beluga youtuber, he put that, then you Deleted it? Why? Now I can't find it. Awesome for your revert which made me look for more time to find what I was looking for. Thx. 103.172.217.171 (talk) 07:48, 9 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Cedric and Phyllis edit

The standard title for a given name article is Name (given name) since the word itself can refer to a number of other things besides the name. I moved these pages to titles that reflect the titles of multiple other given name articles. i have major objections to your reverting them. These are seemingly uncontroversial moves based on previously established precedent. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 15:35, 1 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

No, these articles follow standard naming conventions in that a parenthetical phrase is not automatically appended. In cases where the name is the primary topic, there is no need for the parenthetical disambiguating phrase. olderwiser 15:43, 1 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
This is unduly confusing considering the number of other things that might have the name or might have the name in the future such as a single-named performer or an organization or painting, etc. The standard title Name (given name) clarifies that the topic is tge history and usage of tge name. These are not disambiguation articles. They are properly articles regarding usage of tge name. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 15:50, 1 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
Preemptive disambiguation has been proposed many times and soundly rejected with few exceptions. There is none for Wikipedia:WikiProject Anthroponymy articles. olderwiser 15:59, 1 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
(talk page watcher) @Bookworm857158367 If you think that either name is not the Primary Topic ( which could well be argued, with places, ships, etc), you could propose, for each, a not-uncontroversial multiple move of the disambiguation page to the basename and the given name page to the disambiguation name, as set out at WP:Requested moves. There would then be wider discussion. There might be a lot of incoming links to clear up, I haven't checked. PamD 16:53, 1 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
I’d argue that the name pages aren’t actually disambiguation names but are properly articles about the meaning, history and usage of the name itself. They have significance in and of themselves. They aren’t intended to be place holders referring people to other articles. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 16:59, 1 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
I think you misunderstood what PamD was suggesting. If you think the name articles are not the primary topic, you should propose a requested move of both the name article and the disambiguation page. For example, to move Cedric to Cedric (given name) and Cedric (disambiguation) to Cedric. olderwiser 18:39, 1 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
Easy to find my post confusing, as I'm on phone and didn't notice that my intended "disambiguated name" had been changed to "disambiguation name" ( and it tried to do it again just now!) Sorry I didn't spot it. PamD 19:04, 1 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

A barnstar for you! edit

  The Original Barnstar
Congrats on being the oldest still active editor of Taylor University CavsFan45 (talk) 18:36, 10 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

The Signpost: 10 January 2024 edit

Apologies edit

I was trying to revert vandalism (the "habitual line-stepper" thing), and it seems your attempts to do the same were caught up in that. I am not a vandal and am sorry for the inconvenience! Patient Zerotalk 00:40, 20 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

You're quick! edit

What's the rush? I was just gearing-up to begin an article on the Remington Starfire[1] and you removed my preliminary addition to the Starfire disambiguation page. Have a look at the Olivetti Valentine too – this is where I spotted the Remington Starfire (and also another interesting typewriter called the Monpti, which could also be a useful addition to this encyclopaedia!). Cheers,

References

  1. ^ Greg Fudacz. "Remington Starfire (1963-1969)". Antikeychop.com.

Cl3phact0 (talk) 12:06, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

WP:Write the article first. Entries on dab pages need to have some existing article with relevant content to link to. olderwiser 14:59, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

The Signpost: 31 January 2024 edit

Michael Williams edit

Why did you delete Michael Williams? 193.119.102.196 (talk) 11:04, 1 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

If you mean this edit, there is no article for the person. olderwiser 13:22, 1 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
So! Many of the entries don’t. It’s just to provide information on a Michael Williams citation. Why not mind your own business? 193.119.102.196 (talk) 21:22, 1 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
Which other entries do not have a linked article that supports the usage? olderwiser 23:38, 1 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Happy First Edit Day! edit

The Signpost: 13 February 2024 edit

First Edit Day edit

  Happy First Edit Day, Bkonrad, from the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! Ezra Cricket (talk) 04:59, 13 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Snow Peak reversion edit

Wikidata item Q11312604 references "Snow Peak" as the English article, and that is the article to which the ja-wiki article is linked. Furthermore, it's unnecessary to have (company) in the name when the awkward parenthesis could be placed on a less-frequently visited disambiguation page. Please stop reverting the article to "Snow_Peak_(company)".

Ishiura (talk) 12:29, 13 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Wikidata does NOT in any way ever dictate how articles are titled in English Wikipedia. Do not move pages by cutting and pasting the content as that makes a mess of the edit history and attribution of contributors. If you are not able to move a page yourself, you can make request following instructions at WP:RM. As this is not an uncontroversial move, it should be discussed to establish consensus that the company is the primary topic. olderwiser 12:36, 13 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
OK. I'll create a topic on Snow_Peak_(company)'s talk page.
Ishiura (talk) 12:47, 13 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Invitation to join the Twenty Year Society edit

 

Dear Bkonrad,

I'd like to extend a cordial invitation to you to join the Twenty Year Society, an informal group for editors who've been participating in the Wikipedia project for twenty years or more. ​

Best regards, Chris Troutman (talk) 14:05, 13 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

You reverted my additions for no reason given. edit

So 3 of my edits, on things like (name) and what it’s referring to pages, you quickly removed information about that name could refer to. All of them were specific abilities inside of a Roblox game. And I can’t cite for that because it’s a small edit and there isn’t gonna be an entire news article about a new ability inside of a Roblox game. May I politely ask why they were reverted? Also, I’m new to Wikipedia, just so you know. JAFactsDude (talk) 02:27, 14 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

The edit summary was pretty clear (aside from one where I may have inadvertently hit rollback). None of the terms were so much as mentioned in the linked article. That is a minimal requirement for a disambiguation entry. There is no point to direct readers to pages that have nothing to say about a topic. olderwiser 03:40, 14 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
Okay, make sense now. JAFactsDude (talk) 03:42, 14 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Gabatha edit

For fuck's sake, I'm working on it on my phone, you destroyed most of my work, what's the hurry??!@ Arminden (talk) 15:00, 27 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Get a grip. You removed the disambiguation template (without any indication more work was forthcoming) and I restored it. If you consider that as having destroyed most of your work, you seriously need to re-consider what you are doing. olderwiser 15:49, 27 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thank you! edit

  The Editor's Barnstar
Thank you for helping me fix the inconsistency in Greek letters!

2001:EE0:4BCB:C070:ECDE:4F49:EAC2:92CB (talk) 01:31, 1 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

The Signpost: 2 March 2024 edit

Sometimes, you can do the work for others edit

Back in 2004-2008, when I was an active contributor, and I'd see someone make a change that was useful, but required some extra work to make it comply with the rules, I would do that work for them, rather than reverting the change.

It appears things have changed in the last 20 years. Feel free to edit the neck gaiter article to describe how it can be referred to as a "buff". Here are some sources (usage is colloquial, hasn't quite made it into the Macquarie Dictionary yet). I'm going to log out for another decade or so. Aramգուտանգ 21:18, 6 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Chime edit

What was the reason for the revert? Also, Chime is a prominent DJ, albeit without a wikipedia page yet, I thought this should suffice in the meantime. Perhaps it should be moved to a different section of the Chime page? Or should I provide a source? Finesden (talk) 23:17, 12 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

The purpose of disambiguation pages is to help readers navigate to existing articles with relevant content. If the is no article to direct readers to, then there is no reason to add an entry to the disambiguation page. olderwiser 23:22, 12 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
Okay, thanks. I'll try to keep that in mind when editing disambiguation pages.
But on that note, how come this exists on the page: "Amazon Chime, an enterprise collaboration service from Amazon Web Services". It doesn't link to a page called Amazon Chime. Finesden (talk) 23:31, 12 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
Without scouring history, I couldn't say for certain, but it may be that the linked article Amazon Web Services used to contain some mention of Chime. But there is no trace I can see in the article, so it should be removed. olderwiser 23:47, 12 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

My edit on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CML edit

@Bkonrad Respected sir,

Many thanks for reverting my tag on the above page. Since I am a beginner, I would like to know why. So I do not make the same mistake again.

I am sure, that "CML" is a well-known and accepted abbreviation of "Classic metaphyseal lesions". I can support this statement with several authentic references. But last time when I did it [on some other disambiguation page], the tag was reverted, and when requested to educate me, the answer was that "no references are allowed on Disambiguation pages."

So I am -kind of - in a bind. If I put an authentic reference, the tag is reverted, because it is not allowed. If I do not put such a reference, the tag is reverted [for the supposed reason], that it is an unacceptable abbreviation.

So what should a beginner do?

Kindly enlighten and oblige. Thanks.

Anil1956 (talk) 03:47, 13 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Anil1956, your edit did not link to any existing article. The sole purpose of disambiguation pages is to help readers find articles with content relevant for an ambiguous topic. Please review WP:disambiguation and WP:MOSDAB (or see WP:DDD for a very brief summary). older ≠ wiser 17:54, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Regarding TACL (disambiguation) edit

I noticed you removed my {{db-g7}} from TACL (disambiguation). You left the edit note Perfectly fine redirect. But I don't see why anyone would link to TACL (disambiguation) if they mean to link to a disambiguation for TACL when TACL is itself already a disambiguation. I only created the page in the first place because TACL was previously not a dab, but rather contained the contents of TACL (programming language), which has since been moved to that page. Could you clarify your reasoning? Brusquedandelion (talk) 05:01, 25 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

See WP:INTDABLINK. While at present, there aren't any pages that need to link to this particular dab (such as in a hatnote or see also section), this redirect would be used if any such need arose. Chances are that even if this redirect were deleted, it would have soon been recreated. olderwiser 09:07, 25 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

The Signpost: 29 March 2024 edit