This is Bkonrad's talk page, where you can send messages and comments to Bkonrad.
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97

TimewastingEdit

Please if you are going to make edits like this then at least have the decency to replace the information you are deleting. It seems rather unnecessary to make me go back and repeat an edit. Mujinga (talk) 13:13, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

What? olderwiser 13:25, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Mitchinamecus pageEdit

With regret, you regularly continue to erase certain elements of the fine editorial work of your colleagues on the disambiguation pages of WP. The elements of the Mitchinamecus page were useful to readers; with the advancement of writing in geography, these elements will inevitably have to come back. This erased content didn't hurt anyone. It is a citizen's duty to respect the good established rules. It is also a duty to oppose bad rules, especially the rule of non display (English project) on the disambiguation pages of elements that do not already have an article on WP. Again, the common sense should prevail in the best interest of users. Veillg1 02:30, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

With regret, you regularly continue to create monstrosities posing as disambiguation pages that no member of the disambiguation project would recognize as remotely compliant with WP:MOSDAB. If you feel the need to oppose the rules, then make your case and gain consensus rather than continue to act with idiosyncratic disregard of the guidelines to produce pages that are not only unhelpful for readers but actually a hindrance. olderwiser 01:31, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Request for a block/checkingEdit

Good day. IP 119.93.40.241 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has been using profanity in edit summaries and is being uncivil, e.g. 1, 2, 3, 4. This is already reported at WP:ANI.

IP, in return, reported a user for allegedly edit warring: WP:AN3

A quick help would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks!

Hiwilms (talk) 18:09, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Daniel (disambiguation)Edit

Re: edits to Daniel (disambiguation). Since Daniel is primarily a given name or a surname, it seems appropriate to place those links at the beginning of the disambiguation page. If this is not a standard format, then perhaps the standard format should be reviewed. --Bejnar (talk) 04:31, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Having received no response, I'll make a second attempt in a slightly different format, one that you might find more acceptable.  --Bejnar (talk) 02:55, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Okay, that works. --Bejnar (talk) 19:27, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Wake disambigEdit

Hello! You may have a good reason to revert my edits, but you haven't supplied any in your annotations so they've been reverted. Please supply a good reason why the edits should be reverted, otherwise it looks like edit warring. Leitmotiv (talk) 18:27, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

If it's not obvious to you why links to pages in Draft: space are not allowed on disambiguation pages, perhaps you need to go back to editorial skills 101. olderwiser 18:53, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
Did you have a direct response to my comments, because I see none here. Addressing your signature, do you think it would be prudent, if not wise, to annotate, even if just a little bit, so we could avoid unnecessary reverts, which in turns ends up wasting you and I a bunch of time? Otherwise we end up in cul-de-sac conversations like this one. Also, commenting on editorial skills would suggest that no one is allowed to edit, especially anonymous IPs, but they can. Such comments are non-sequiturs and do not relieve you of the responsibility to annotate your edits. Leitmotiv (talk) 19:05, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Sutton River disambigEdit

Hello! Your obstinacy in erasing the good work of your colleagues in the disambiguation pages impedes the advancement of Wikipedia. You blindly apply your own strict interpretation of the rule. Unfortunately for you and your colleagues, this publishing war wastes everyone's time. In the end, the article "Sutton River" was published, but the names of rivers whose article is not yet created are missing. You are invited to apply your common sense judgment, as all rivers in the country will eventually have an article. (talk) 3:15, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

When the articles are written, they can be added to the disambiguation page. How hard is that? Disambiguation pages are not meant to be comprehensive lists of everything that might ever have had that name. Your careless editing and disregard for naming conventions, disambiguation guidelines (as well as many other editing guidelines) leave tedious work for other editors to clean up the terrible messes you leave behind. olderwiser 02:43, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Precious anniversaryEdit

Precious
 
Five years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:13, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

CommentEdit

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by UnofficialWikieditor20 (talkcontribs) 18:42, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

ThanksEdit

I've had Black Hand watchlisted for couple of years now, and I just wanted to let you know that your work in removing stuff not mentioned in the linked article is appreciated. Actually, I was one of the people whose stuff you removed a while back, and your example taught me a lot about inclusion criteria in general (via follow-up reading when trying to learn why you did what you did), which motivated learning more about Wikipedia and is sort of one of the things that eventually motivated me to get an account.

So I just wanted to say - thank you for the work you do. Gimubrc (talk) 15:15, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 May 2020Edit