Wikipedia

User talk:Bkonrad/Archive 61

< User talk:Bkonrad
Latest comment: 10 years ago by BracketBot in topic April 2014
Archive 55 ← Archive 59 Archive 60 Archive 61 Archive 62 Archive 63 → Archive 65

March 2014

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

  Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Phoenix may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • * "Phoenix]], the 1986 premiere episode of ''[[List of The Adventures of the Galaxy Rangers episodes|The

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 01:27, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Chai

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

In this edit[1] you removed a Tocright tag, removed a Wiktionary tag and added a Split indication (on a page that isn't so large that it needs splitting). Please can you explain what guidelines you are working to for these changes ? DexDor (talk) 20:24, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Hmm, I'm not sure how I missed those other changes; I was primarily looking at the additional links added by switching from 茶 ({{Lang|zh|茶}} to pinyin: chá ({{zh|p=chá|y=caa4 (cha)}}). older ≠ wiser 01:30, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

(test) The Signpost: 05 March 2014

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The Signpost: 12 March 2014

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Mi'kmaq title history and what's up right now

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Note here, where I noted you had taken part in trying to prevent the pre-emption of the PRIMARYTOPIC to a dab page by Kwami]. He did an end-run on you, suffice to say. I'll get accused of CANVASS for this maybe but I'm seeing signs of WP:CABAL and a complete intransigence about listening to any other guideline other than the one he authored himself. 'Nuff said, annotating that page has taken my whole morning and now I'm late for my running club :-D.Skookum1 (talk) 07:30, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Section headings

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

According to the Gregg Reference Manual, for titles of headings, "capitalize all words with four or more letters." Heditor6 (talk) 03:01, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

@Heditor6: Gregg Reference Manual is not the style guide that Wikipedia follows. Please see WP:HEADINGS. older ≠ wiser 03:10, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

zong

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

sorry for misunderstanding. The word "zong" was not searchable in the page, because it was in the collapsed template. - Altenmann >t 00:58, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

regarding perelman entropy

Latest comment: 10 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

with reference to this edit:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Entropy_(disambiguation)&oldid=600064579

you undid it saying that the usage on terence tao's article which it was linked to, did not correspond to the one i gave on the disambiguation page. given that english is my third language, i guess i did not understand terence's meaning of the words he used:

"...the two scale-invariant monotone quantities we possess (Perelman entropy and Perelman reduced volume)"

it seems to me that if you have "two scale invariant monotone quantities" listed, and a user opts to pick one, then that one is "a scale-invariant monotone quantity" as i wrote. maybe you're confusing the additional information he added which further defines the terms used but that, in wikipedia, would be done in the full article.

at any rate, i see why people like peter woit gave up on editing wikipedia. i gave up myself years ago because i thought that if something is (considered) improperly done, yet should be a valid entry (and i don't see why this is less valid than Kolmogorov–Sinai entropy), that we (all) co-operate to improve the entry through additional information or clarification of terms, not just remove it.

The difference is that Measure-preserving dynamical system#Measure-theoretic entropy does specifically support the usage described on the disambiguation page while the Grigori Perelman article does not support the usage added with your edit. older ≠ wiser 00:40, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
the phrase "...the two scale-invariant monotone quantities we possess (Perelman entropy and Perelman reduced volume)" in the reference i gave also supports the usage described in the disambiguation page with respect to perelman entropy: "a scale-invariant monotone quantity".
i only put a wikipedia reference to perelman so that a user can know which perelman we're referring to until someone starts the article about the concept or makes a section in a mathematical article. i don't know what the guidelines on that are but i've seen separations of links like that (a phrase with individual links for each word rather than the phrase) in many articles i've read on wikipedia. a simple edit of that link and a removal of the reference--if it was so improper--would have sufficed.
it's funny that you should prefer wikipedia anyway, with its edit wars and ephemeral nature, over a primary source where all the details are given and the author would be happy to answer your questions and clarify any confusion, as he always does. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.156.3.74 (talk) 14:59, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
The problem is that disambiguation pages are not indexes to the Internet -- they are navigational aides to help readers find existing content in Wikipedia articles. That's why disambiguation pages should not have references. If the content is notable, it should be added to the relevant article(s). At that time, a disambiguation entry would be warranted. older ≠ wiser 00:47, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 19 March 2014

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The Shield reverts

Latest comment: 10 years ago15 comments2 people in discussion

Hey there.

Just looking for the rationale you've got for reverting my edits to The Shield-related articles. Every one of those character pieces is purely in-universe content (except for one or two which have a sentence of real-life material, but not enough for a separate article) and, as such, fails the general notability guideline and more.

Also, they're just redirects - if somebody wants to merge content, they're free to do so from the history.

Any thoughts? I'd like to restore the redirects, I'm just interested in hearing your side. Best, m.o.p 19:12, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

@Master of Puppets: Was there some discussion of these articles in which consensus was established? Or were you acting a judge, jury and executioner? I saw what looked like rather BOLD edits that IMO resulted in a rather large undiscussed removal of article content. I have no strong opinions about the individual character articles, but I strongly object to removing the list article and in particular to several of your edits that changed what had been links to the list article to instead link to the main article -- except that the main article had no mention of the particular character. older ≠ wiser 01:28, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
I'm interested if you could address my point on how these blatantly fail policy, given that they have zero real-world notability. Don't get me wrong, I'm a fan of the show, but this sort of content has no place on Wikipedia. Wikia, maybe, but not here.
As previously stated, they're redirects, not deletions - people are free to access the old revision if they'd like to update or flesh out the main article.
If it's okay with you, I'll reinstate my changes unless you believe the articles are sound in terms of policy. As we both know, Wikipedia is not a collection of indiscriminate in-universe information - I'd like to get rid of the fancruft. m.o.p 04:24, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
@Master of Puppets: I have no opinion about notability, other than to note that it has been the source of considerable disagreements as to how to interpret and what actions are appropriate. In this case, I do not think the practical removal of a large quantity of material based on your opinion along is sound. If there has been some discussion among a number of editors familiar with the subject area and there is consensus, that would be a different thing altogether (although, even in that case, I'd hope you would be more careful to not alter links go to an article that says nothing whatsoever about the linked term. older ≠ wiser 01:01, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
Let's treat this as small-scale consensus, then. I believe that articles composed of purely, 100% in-universe information with no real-world notability fly directly in the face of WP:GNG, mostly because it establishes that articles with no real-world notability do not belong on Wikipedia, and should therefore be removed. Do you interpret that policy differently? m.o.p 21:56, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
How about we treat this as no consensus at present? Your beliefs are only that so far as I'm concerned, and are not sufficient to warrant WP:RECKLESS removal of such a large quantity of content. older ≠ wiser 00:36, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
I'm not quite sure how to proceed from this point, since we seem to be having a miscommunication.
Look at the articles in question. Vic Mackey, Shane Vendrell, Ronnie Gardocki, Jon Kavanaugh.
Not a single one is notable. The chief policy on Wikipedia that decides whether or not a standalone article is appropriate states that the above examples are not notable. There is not much interpretation to be done; as stated above, the articles do not offer a shred of real-world notability (nor is any present - I've checked). And, unfortunately, article content does not determine notability, no matter how much text there is or how pretty it looks.
I'd like it if you could reply with something other than deflection. Treat it like an AfD vote; what policy would you bring up in the defense of Curtis Lemansky to stop it from being deleted? If you're unable to think of one, please let me know so that I may reinstate the changes.
Best, m.o.p 02:11, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
All I'm suggesting is that I do not see any consensus for your actions. I suggest initiating some discussion on the talk pages of the affected articles or perhaps have a centralized discussion to cover several at once. older ≠ wiser 02:17, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
Understood, but saying that this requires consensus implies that there's a possibility the material in question can be kept in accordance to policy. Unless I've been misreading our notability policies incorrectly all these years, these articles do not have any legs to stand on whatsoever. All I'm doing is redirecting them to the show's main page, where I'll merge any pertinent material. Keep in mind that the page histories will still be available, and any relevant details currently in stand-alone articles will be moved to the parent article.
Do you agree that this is a sensible course of action? I'm all for drumming up consensus, but is it really necessary in a situation like this? m.o.p 02:28, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
Actually, no, I don't think merging details about a bunch of characters to the main article is a good idea. Perhaps some could be merged to the list of characters article. The problem is that you're making pretty substantial changes based solely on your interpretation of notability policies and guidelines that have been the source of frequent dispute. I'd much rather see some discussion and consensus among editors familiar with the subject that merging is the best course of action. older ≠ wiser 02:34, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

But... I'm literally following our notability policy. There is no interpretation being done. And I wouldn't be merging them to the list article, as that's also completely unencyclopedic (again, just following policy to the letter).
However, as you keep ducking the issue and pushing consensus without any obvious reason, I suppose I've got no choice but to submit. I'll ask around and see if I can get a few editors involved. m.o.p 02:41, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

WP:Notability is a guideline (and one that has been a frequent source of contention). It is not a license for WP:RECKLESS editing. Have you in fact followed the steps suggested at WP:FAILN? Have you made a good faith effort to look for appropriate sources yourself? Have you tried notifying article creators of your concerns? Have you attempted to alert other editors of your concerns? older ≠ wiser 02:49, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
It may be a guideline and it may be a source of frequent contention, but it's (barring a few exceptions) what all articles are held to when deciding whether or not to keep them (see AFD, CSD, etc.). As it's currently written, it doesn't support the articles in question. And, after having participated in and closed hundreds of AFDs, I can tell you that each of these articles would fail if brought to AFD - however, I don't want to delete them.
As for FAILN:
  • article creators do not matter, since a fictional character does not benefit from someone's expertise (you can cite character attributes and history all you want, but that doesn't make it notable)
  • almost all of the articles mentioned have had a notability tag on them for ages
  • Yes, I've looked for sources indicating real-world notability (as stated above)
You'll note that FAILN then advocates for merging articles to a centralized one. That's the stage we're at now. Or at least, that's the stage where I was before being reverted. I admit that it was a bold move but I wouldn't call it reckless, given that I weighed the situation and, after factoring in my extensive experience in the article space, decided to enforce policy. m.o.p 02:57, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
I would consider it reckless, considering that you subsequently edited a number of links to point to a article that made no mention whatsoever of the linked term. The issue for me remains that it appears to be you and you alone that are acting as judge, jury , and executioner. All I'm saying is that the massive sort of changes you were making need something more than a consensus of one. older ≠ wiser 23:55, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
Which I would have either merged in or removed in the coming days, only my actions were undone without any prior discussion.
But, since I feel like all we're doing here is stomping already-trodden ground, I'll see if anyone else offers me objections not based in policy. Best, m.o.p 03:27, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Why I have been working on Shelby Charter Township and Disco, Michigan articles

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello!

You may or may not be curious regarding my recent work on these articles.

I have been updating these in conjunction with an effort to correct a major problem on Facebook: They do not have Shelby Charter Township identified as a 'place', so that users can select it as their current home town, or where they are from. Instead, if Shelby Charter Township or any variation is entered, the field auto-defaults to Disco, Michigan...which obviously no longer exists, and was never a city at all.

Thus, I separated the articles here, deleted the redirect from Disco to Shelby Charter, and enhanced (I hope) both articles.

On Facebook I have merged Disco with Shelby Charter, and done everything possible to diminish the exposure of Disco as a place (including editing hundreds of businesses to drop Disco as their location). However - since their is NO WAY to contact Facebook directly - all requests and edits are still pending to get them to correct the problem.

My last attempt to make sure that the Disco article here was not 'triggering' the Facebook classification as a city was my ill-fated change of 'city' to 'populated place' in the template - which you corrected. (Thank you)

If you are aware of any other indicators or keys in Wikipedia articles which might be driving the errors in Facebook, would you please be so kind as to identify them to me? I am really frustrated by the situation on Facebook, and am determined to put Shelby Charter Township on their map!

Thank you again for your help in correcting my novice mistakes here.

Cary C (talk) 15:32, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

A case of where this could be the same guy nominated for special effects

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Okay so I made a page for Robert MacDonald (filmmaker), I look up to the 1940's and notice a R. A. MacDonald. Now granted it is a common name, but is seems it could be the same person but I can't find any evidence if it is or not. Odd. Wgolf (talk) 02:22, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 March 2014

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The Signpost: 02 April 2014

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The Signpost: 09 April 2014

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The Signpost: 23 April 2014

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

April 2014

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

  Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Zoe may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • * Zoey, a contestant on [[[[List of Total Drama characters#Second generation cast|''Total Drama'']]

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 01:27, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bkonrad/Archive_61&oldid=1144363432"