User talk:Bkonrad/Archive 91

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 85

←

Archive 89

→

ORLANDO

Latest comment: 5 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Why is the wikilink to Orlando a redirect to some random city in the USA? There is a disambiguation page for Orlando and it is more logical to use it for that. This is not a place for personal opinions...Dalida Editor _{please ping or message me}' 03:06, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Consensus determined at Orlando (disambiguation)#Requested move 20 August 2016. Please establish a new consensus. older ≠ wiser 11:04, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Actually Talk:Orlando (disambiguation)#Requested move 20 August 2016. And I see I agreed at the time! PamD 06:59, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Need your help with Chosen One Adam proven here...

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello BKonrad, How are you. I wanted to know if you would help me with this. You had removed something I posted that I thought proved Adam was the Chosen one. I found something just now. It states in the Islamic Persian writings that Adam is The Chosen One. The Translation is by Lloyd Ridgeon in his book called Jawanmardi, A Suficode of Honor. At the end of Page 111 and you will begin reading this that Adam is the Chosen One. Can you help me add this to what you removed? I would really appreciate it. Here is the page: https://books.google.com/books?id=UiqrBgAAQBAJ&pg=PA111&lpg=PA111&dq=confirming+the+proof+of+the+futuwwat&source=bl&ots=CkXPwmtpVc&sig=ACfU3U2GftjW8lR4J4VkZ8q7j8XrYxOn-g&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjVur3DopLhAhUYITQIHSZWDJoQ6AEwAHoECAkQAQ#v=onepage&q=confirming%20the%20proof%20of%20the%20futuwwat&f=false — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.181.168.42 (talk) 03:24, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

What are you doing?

Latest comment: 5 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

I asked for your help and now you remove the source of Adam as The Chosen One??? What are you doing exactly? Source of link: Title Jawanmardi: A Sufi Code of Honour: A Sufi Code of Honour Author Lloyd Ridgeon Publisher Edinburgh University Press, 2011 ISBN 0748645993, 9780748645992 Length 224 pages Subjects Religion › Islam › Sufi — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.181.168.42 (talk) 03:29, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation pages are meant to help readers find existing article content that may be known by an ambiguous term. Disambiguation should never contain external links or references. If the topic you mention is notable, please either add it to an appropriate existing article or create new article for the topic. older ≠ wiser 09:40, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Don't be cocky or arrogant by adding the older wiser comment. I'm asking you to help me. The link is part of a book. I don't know how to add it other than give you the link provided. Why can't you just help me? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.181.168.42 (talk) 16:26, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

I have no interest in the topic. You might try raising the topic at Talk:Adam. Much likelier to find someone with interest or familiarity with the topic there than at the disambiguation page. older ≠ wiser 16:34, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

If you have no interest in topic why do you keep erasing it??

Latest comment: 5 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Also why are there no other sources backed up to all other chosen ones? You're a TROLL — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.181.168.42 (talk) 17:21, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

I do have an interest in disambiguation pages. There are standards for disambiguation pages that all editors are expected to follow (WP:DAB and WP:MOSDAB). older ≠ wiser 17:31, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

So make the link work and stop trolling and removing reliable sources!!!!!!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.181.168.42 (talk) 17:36, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Like I said, I have absolutely no interest whatsoever in the topic you are trying to incorrectly insert into the disambiguation page. If you think it is notable that Adam is known as "the chosen one", THAT article needs to support that claim and you need to add the reference to that article. I pointed out to you that Talk:Adam may be a better place to find editors with some interest or familiarity with the topic. older ≠ wiser 17:39, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

AS it states...

Latest comment: 5 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

"In Good Faith" you should have helped make it work. It clearly states that in the disambigious edits on wikipedia. SO IF YOU KEEP ERASING IT, YOU SHOULD HAVE CORRECTED IT.

ALSO -- NO OTHER "CHOSEN ONE" under people or any other have ANY SOURCES!!!!!!! AND You Don't remove them!!!!!!!!! Talk about TROLLING!!!!!!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.181.168.42 (talk) 18:00, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

No, I'm under no obligation to help unwitting editors that appear to be pushing some sort of fringe theory. No disambiguation page should EVER have any external links or references. The linked articles must support the claimed usage. Each and every one of the entries on the page has a mention of the term "chosen one" in the linked article. Whether that usage has any supporting references within that article is a matter for editors of that article to consider. Editors are free to challenge any such unreferenced assertion in those articles. older ≠ wiser 18:57, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

I never pushed anything but the TRUTH. It clearly states that Biblical Adam is the Chosen one. I proved that with the sources. And by pushing God and Adam as his chosen one I'm now an unwitting editor? I never said to use the disambiguous pages. I asked to use what has been written and find a way to source them. It clearly states that "ADAM IS THE CHOSEN ONE". Very clear and precise. You have wasted so much time by removing it that you could have EASILY made it work as ADAM is THE CHOSEN ONE. Instead you lecture a gentile on how to edit wikipedia when clearly you're the professional and spend day and night doing it. I find that totally unprofessional and preposterous. When your power is taken away from you, and it will be eventually, I wonder what you will do next. It's people like you that give wikipedia a bad name. I clearly asked for your help over and over and you simply would not do it. Older doesn't translate to wiser. In your case it accounts to stubbornness and selfish. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.181.168.42 (talk) 22:03, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Yawn. Just another anonymous editor who knows what the truth really is. older ≠ wiser 22:37, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Category:Avoided double redirects

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

We had a discussion some time ago about what to classify similar named redirects. I found the above category, which is a much better solution and designed for the job of identifying the problem. Best Wishes. --Richhoncho (talk) 14:34, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

GMD

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

What is wrong with me adding "Geometry Dash" to the list? Some people refer to it as that. Also, I don't know the rules of DABMENTION. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.227.103.20 (talk) 09:00, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Try reading WP:MOSDAB, in particular WP:DABMENTION:

If a topic does not have an article of its own, but is mentioned within another article, then a link to that article should be included. . . . If the topic is not mentioned on the other article, that article should not be linked to in the disambiguation page, since linking to it would not help readers find information about the sought topic.

and MOS:DABACRO

When considering articles to include in the list, it is important that each individual entry is referred to by its respective abbreviation within its article

older ≠ wiser 10:43, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 March 2019

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

From the editors: Getting serious about humor

News and notes: Blackouts fail to stop EU Copyright Directive

In the media: Women's history month

Discussion report: Portal debates continue, Prespa agreement aftermath, WMF seeks a rebranding

Featured content: Out of this world

Arbitration report: The Tides of March at ARBCOM

Traffic report: Exultations and tribulations

Technology report: New section suggestions and sitewide styles

News from the WMF: The WMF's take on the new EU Copyright Directive

Recent research: Barnstar-like awards increase new editor retention

From the archives: Esperanza organization disbanded after deletion discussion

Humour: The Epistolary of Arthur 37

Op-Ed: Pro and Con: Has gun violence been improperly excluded from gun articles?

In focus: The Wikipedia SourceWatch

Special report: Wiki Loves (50 Years of) Pride

Community view: Wikipedia's response to the New Zealand mosque shootings

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:02, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Khoja edit please read this

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Sir i gived right information about the caste. Older information says khoja is a Muslim gotra but Khoja is a hindu jat gotra. Also i belongs to it. Please revert back your edits and apply my changes. Because i wrote info by very hard work and you changed.

Please sir this info says khoja is Muslim is not correct Please revert back and apply my changes again.

A request to you. Arvindkhoja11 (talk) 03:02, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:Thomas White Ferry.png

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The file File:Thomas White Ferry.png has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

unused, low-res, no obvious encyclopedic use

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:01, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

I did not do an "incomplete disambiguation"

Latest comment: 5 years ago8 comments2 people in discussion

Please stop edit warring to force your preference on the Peach (song) page and perhaps discuss the matter. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 20:55, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Do you actually understand what WP:incomplete disambiguation is? Both versions of Peach (song) that you created are textbook examples of incomplete disambiguation. older ≠ wiser 22:52, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Peach (song) is no different than the hundreds of Peach (surname) and similar disambiguation pages, so WP:incomplete disambiguation doesn't make any sense when considering that. Four items is plenty for it to have its own disambiguation page. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 14:38, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Nihonjoe, except surname pages are not disambiguation. Again if you actually read and understand WP:incomplete disambiguation, Peach (song) could be substituted there as an example. older ≠ wiser 22:49, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Except that they are disambiguation pages except in a few circumstances where there are actually enough reliable sources to write an article about the name. They are all tagged as disambiguation pages. "People with Surname" (done up as "Surname (surname)") is no different than "Songs named Peach" done up as "Peach (song)". The guidelines are extremely inconsistent. It's not your fault people here can't come up with simple MOS guidelines to save their lives. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 23:59, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

No, they are not all tagged as disambiguation page. A page titled as "Name (surname)" should not be tagged as a disambiguation page. It should be tagged as {{surname}}. older ≠ wiser 00:09, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Most (if not all) of those pages are disambiguation pages, regardless of what kind of dancing around it you want to do. Most (if not all) have a very brief etymology at the top, followed by a list of people with that surname who have articles. Potayto, potahto. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 00:34, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Well, you're entitled to your opinion, but they are clearly not disambiguation pages. older ≠ wiser 00:47, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

How do I properly add an external link?

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I have tried to click on the "edit external links" and use a web template to add a relevant resource but I don't seem to be able to get it to appear in the proper spot. How do I do that?Jeanninegrimm (talk) 21:50, 17 April 2019 (UTC)jeanninegrimm

Jeanninegrimm, I'm a bit of a curmudgeon using a tablet with limited editing capability. You may find more patient and helpful editors by asking at WP:help desk or WP:Teahouse. older ≠ wiser 22:53, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

SCF = Scandinavian crime fiction

Latest comment: 4 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

I encountered SCF without any explanation in a review of a book on Amazon. Unfortunately I can't remember which book now. It took me a while to find out what SCF meant. So I was trying to help people who encountered the same problem as I had encountered.

If you Google

  "scandinavian crime fiction" "scf"

you get over 200 hits.

RenniePet (talk) 14:25, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Except that's not what disambiguation pages are for. They're not an acronym finder or a glossary of slang usage. They are solely for helping readers find existing content in Wikipedia where the article has content that indicates the topic is known by the ambiguous term. older ≠ wiser 22:57, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Well, the text "Scandinavian crime fiction" exists five times in the "Nordic noir" article.

RenniePet (talk) 04:06, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes, but there is no indication of it being known by the initials. older ≠ wiser 09:10, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

See MOS:DABACRO for guidance:

When considering articles to include in the list, it is important that each individual entry is referred to by its respective abbreviation within its article.

older ≠ wiser 09:22, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

ANI

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. 77.191.191.222 (talk) 01:44, 24 April 2019 (UTC)