User talk:Jerzy/Phase 02

(Retrofitted with dynamic transclusion of User:Jerzy/Past Archive Phases.) All New: 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 Orphaned: 500 1001 1501

Wikipedia:Babel

enThis user is a native speaker of the English language.

de-2Dieser Benutzer hat fortgeschrittene Deutschkenntnisse.

Search user languages

Rough Overview of this Page

1. Welcome to the Page for "Talking" to Jerzy (Talk-Page Front-Matter)
   1. About Communicating Here
   2. Note to Non-Native Speakers of English
   3. Links to my Discussion (User-talk page) Archives
   4. Detailed Table of Contents of whole page
2. Messages to Jerzy and Dialogues with Him

Welcome to the Page for "Talking" to Jerzy (Talk-Page Front-Matter)

Communicating here

Leaving me a message

The end of this page is always a good place to leave messages to me, and for most users, by far the easiest ways of doing that is:

1. You probably have simulated file-folder tabs (not "browser tabs") at the top of the box enclosing the text that you are reading from: rectangles a little taller than one line of text, with the fourth tab from the left reading something like "+" or "+comment". Click on that tab -- or here.
2. Fill in both the single-line edit pane with the title or subject of your message.
3. Type your message for me into the larger edit pane below it.
4. As the last line, type

   --~~~~

5. Click on the "Show preview" button, and proofread what is displayed.
6. If changes are needed, make them and repeat the the previous step (and then this one).
7. Click on the "Save page" button, making your message a new "section" on this page.

Leaving followup messages

If you previously left me a message on this page, and now you have more to say on the same subject, follow this link to this page's Table of Contents. If it hasn't been too long, you should find the section with the previous message from you, and to its right a link reading

[edit]

1. Click on that "[edit]" link.
2. Confirm (perhaps by previewing) that it's the same section as before.
3. Type type more below the old message in the larger edit pane (below the preview, if any).
4. As the new last line, type

   --~~~~

5. Click on the "Show preview" button, and proofread what is displayed.
6. If changes are needed, make them and repeat the previous step (and then this one).
7. In the small edit pane below the larger edit pane, type a few words summarizing what you're adding (and preview and revise if appropriate).
8. Click on the "Save page" button, replacing your previous message a new longer one including it.

Guide to the Rest of This Page

The remaining material consists of

• A warning about a highly idiosyncratic aspect of my grammar
• Help finding things that were previously on this talk page, but have been moved

  (These are some people's top priority, but most will prefer to jump to the Table of Contents, or add a message at the end.)

• A Table of Contents listing every section currently on the page
• A number of sections each containing either messages from on editor, hopefully each on a single topic, or a two-way discussion

Note to Non-Native Speakers of English

Years ago, i got stuck in my brain the idea that there's something wrong about modern English singling out the first-person singular pronoun to be spelled with a capital letter. So i spell it without the capital -- except at the beginning of a sentence, or when i'm not the sole author. If you follow my example, native speakers will just figure you're ignorant of the basics.

(I also say the above, and a bit more, on my User page.)

Links to my Discussion (User-talk page) Archives

"Phases" of my Talk Page

The remainder of this section is dynamically transcluded from my "Past Archive Phases" page.

These phases can be used not only for their text, but also for verifying the date & time when specific edits occurred and what registered or "IP" user at Wikipedia made the edits, via each phase's edit history.

• Phase 10's future content is currently being accumulated at User talk:Jerzy, from discussions starting on or after 2009 August 1 (or expected to continue from before that date), and will be copied to the subpage Phase 10 at a later date.
• The Phase 09 page covers discussions active during 2009 July.
• The Phase 08 page covers discussions active during 2009 June 21 (at noon) -30.
• The Phase 07 page covers discussions active during 2009 June 16- 21 (at noon).
• The Phase 06 page covers discussions active during 2009 June 1-15.
  • Progress report: (I got lazy; i should have cut Phase 6 off in mid-June due to high volume, but here it is mid-July.)
    I think i won't have "to break the pattern" after all, instead splitting the history (and content), with hindsight, at the points where i would have if i had had foresight abt the volume of upcoming discussions! Phase 06 (temporary) is not a phase, but a work space: i moved the talk page there to start accumulating new discussion on the newest User talk:Jerzy page, and now am in the process of undeleting portions of the temp to provide both the edit history and the content (after removing excess) of several new phases. I'll continue to update this template to provide current guidance, mostly a little ahead of actual implementation. Some archived content will temporarily be available only to admins, at times when i'm fairly actively working on this process.
• The Phase 05 page covers discussions active during 2009 May.
• The Phase 04 page covers discussions active during 2009 April.
• The Phase 03 page covers 2009 February 1 through March 31 discussion-starts; although the voluminous discussion concerning a dispute resolution process is mentioned and linked (and "included by reference") from the point at which it originated (on the talk page that has been renamed to Phase 03), its content is at my Proofreader77 subpage.
• The Phase 02 page covers 2009 January 1 through 31 discussion-starts.
• The Phase 01 page covers 2008 September 1 through 2008 December 31 discussion-starts.
• As to Phase 00 (in the sense of the remaining period talk page's existence):
  • Discussions started from 2006 February 20 to 2008 August 31 are covered, as to both editing history and content, by the Phase 00 page.
  • Discussions started from 2003 Sept. 3 through 2006 February 19 have their discussion content in the "Topical" and "Mixed-topic" archives linked below (directly and via a date-range-organized index pg, respectively); their editing history is presently part of that of the Phase 00 page.

    If the material were more recent (or if interest is shown) that page history could be subdivided using administrator permissions, producing at least a corresponding separate history for each of the two phase 00 periods just described. The process could certainly be extended to reunite the presumably non-overlapping "Mixed-topic" archives with their respective edit histories. Doing the same for the "Topical" archives would surely be more onerous, and if there are duplications of these discussions in the "Mixed-topic" archives, one copy of the history would have to be manually assembled by copying from the DBMS-generated history pages, and pasting to an ordinary content page.
    

Notes re history irregularities.

Mixed-topic Archives

These are more chronological than my Topical Archives listed in the immediately previous section, exhaustive (outside the "Topical Archives" topics) for the periods they cover but (presently and probably permanently) cover only through 18:43, 1 April 2006 (UTC).

• /Archive Index

Topical Archives

These include nothing newer than 2004, and each concerns one area of interest, sometimes oriented toward an article or articles with the same subject matter, sometimes otherwise connected.

• TRAC Programming language (6.7 kB, 2004 Nov 8)
• Carleton College (9 kB, 2004 Nov 6)
• Wikipedia Categories (9 kB, 2004 Nov 4)
• Turkey (often re Armenians) (19 kB, '04 Jul - Oct)
• Jerzy as Administrator (16 kB, '04 Sep- Oct)
• Dialogue with Adam Carr (14 KB, 2004 Jul 16)
• List of people by name (14 kB, '03 Dec - '04 Mar)

TABLE of CONTENTS

Access to Most Recent Entries of ToC

(If the page gets large, it's easier to scroll back up into the ToC from here than to scroll down thru it from its top.)

Messages to Jerzy and Dialogues with Him

Jason Nesmith

My work on the Dab page, which i think "[my] recent changes" regarding "this name" most obviously refer to, consists of these two edit-history entries but might reasonably refer to these four; they surely are limited to this series of (in various degrees mutually related) edits. --Jerzy•t 06:41, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
I discovered considerable confusion about this name on Wikipedia, which may not have been rectified by your recent changes. Please note that there are essentially NO other articles linking to or referencing Jason Nesmith, the wrestler. Identifying the wrestler's almost-orphaned article as the primary topic would seem unwarranted. There are more that reference Jason Nesmith (often but not always spelled NeSmith), the Georgia musician also known as Casper. There are also a few references in other articles to a third Jason Nesmith, who, based on all references I could find, is not the same person as "Casper." This third Jason Nesmith is mentioned in at least a couple of other WP articles-among other things he was in a band with Donovan Leitch (actor). Whoever his father might be, I am not aware of any dispute that this third Jason Nesmith is the son of Nurit Wilde, and deleting the reference to him at the disambiguation page has the unfortunate consequence of confusing him with the other two (as, indeed, many of the links I found had done). And then of course there is also the character played by Tim Allen.
--Arxiloxos (talk) 17:50, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

The following is copied from where i originally placed it at #Jason Nesmith.--J'y

• Well, my source of interest was the horrible Dab, and the regard it suggested for access to people who don't seem to be notable enuf to have articles, in contrast to an established (tho limp) bio.
  As to the one whose imagined article i've called (for lack of information on him) Jason Nesmith (musician), Dabs are here to repair confusion among articles, and a sentence abt a guy's parentage and DoB is not the kind of encyclopedia-worthy info that we sometimes create links to in lieu of a bio article. And, while of course NPoV and collaborative editing are the foundation of WP, BLP is a huge high-voltage fence limiting what can get onto that foundation. Your suggestion ("I am not aware of any dispute that this third Jason Nesmith is the son of Nurit Wilde") that we rely on the failure to prove a negative would be laughable (have you never heard the expression, from a celeb to a tabloidista, "i won't dignify that with an answer"?), if BLP were not given the urgency it is by the WP office. Fan sites are not verification, and the apparently anonymous "bio" of Wilde that i found at IMDb is the antithesis of verification. And i'm saying that not only under my shyster-lawyer hat: a "casual relationship" in 1968? Were you around rock bands in 1968? Have you heard of "drugs"? It's hard to imagine more than one self-interested person, other than a blood tech, having certain knowledge of the parentage, and easy to imagine no one having it. I had a colleague back in the day who may have been right in attributing a pair of twins to two different fathers, tho apparently no one had had recourse to blood tests.
  I think i made clear my view that all bets are off on this in the long run, and you can see from my tags on the wrestler bio that my only respect for it is based on the fact that it's a (year-old) free-standing bio that hasn't yet failed the trial-by-ordeal of AfD. You're the most likely editor to be responsible for making a case for equal Dab'n, but you've got a lot of homework -- research leading to a consensus for such a change -- to do before that.
  --Jerzy•t 19:31, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
  

I have reformatted the contribs made here by JN prior to today, for the sake of the greater structural clarity that the dialogue-on-1-page mode makes desirable.--Jerzy•t 06:41, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
In response to your comments:

1. As to Jason Nesmith #3's parentage, here are some sources I quickly located via Google:

* A 1994 New York Times article about Donovan Leitch and the band Nancy Boy, identifying Jason Nesmith as "the son of Mike Nesmith, formerly of the Monkees." [1] This should be sufficient, but I also found:

* A statement by an arts reporter for the Boston Globe that Nurit had Michael's child, together with a direct quote from Nurit referring to Jason Nesmith as her son. [2] It's my understanding that this source is deemed reliable pursuant to Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Reliable_sources: "Some newspapers host interactive columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control."

* Official publicity for Jason Nesmith's album Portrait, which includes the following: "And yes, he is the son of Michael Nesmith. But don’t tell anybody." [3]

* I also found a published book on Google directly identifying him as the son of both Mike and Nurit. I am uncertain about the provenance of the publisher of this book, however.[4],

2. By the way, based on Ahmet Zappa's official Myspace page, it appears most likely that the Jason Nesmith who was in Nancy Boy is the same one who is referenced at The Frank Zappa AAAFNRAA Birthday Bundle. This is not the same person as Jason "Casper" Nesmith.

3. I am hopeful that we can please shoot for a higher level of civility in this discussion? We are only discussing a disambiguation page for a group of relatively obscure characters. It's evident that you didn't like my proposed solution, and that's fine. You obviously have more experience with DAB pages than I do. But do you really think it is necessary or appropriate to hurl such epithets at me and other editors such as:

*"horrible"

*"laughable"

*"outright silly"

*"Nonsense"

*"clueless"

*And especially, gratuitous uses of the N-word in such a manner as to suggest that you equate other editors' good faith edits with the use of this word?

--Arxiloxos (talk) 00:47, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Arxiloxos, as to 1 and 2 above, i'm glad that my efforts led to that needed research, and in my casual opinion your results deserve evaluation as possible basis for creating the refs that would justify restoring what i removed from the NW bio article. But my interest in the matter is small: my priorities run heavily toward Dab quality; i'm involved in this discussion bcz BLP violations (like NPoV ones) are for me (as IMO they should be for all serious editors) special matters that require immediate response independent of personal interest.
As to 3 above, a fully detailed response would arguably be uncivil by belaboring the obvious, but i'll offer a limited one that should ensure clarity. I happen to have stumbled across the bases of two of your points, so without effort i recall what i was in fact talking about:

_ _ "[H]orrible" was not an "epithet" that i "hurled" "at [you] and other editors", it was my description of the Dab as i found it. If you examine the changes i made in light of the content of Dab and MoSDab, i think you'll see that "horrible" describes the high degree of non-compliance, by the version of the Dab i found, with the well-established standards for Dabs. It's not a perfectly objective word, but even if perfectly objective words were available, my choice of this one was not abusive to a person.
_ _ Similarly, "clueless" was the word i used to describe, strictly, not people at all, but rumors (to the effect that Jason NeSmith (Casper) is the son of the Monkee Michael Nesmith, presumably based on confusion between Jason NeSmith (Casper) and another JN who is or is rumored to be the son of the Monkee and NW). And more importantly, the people whom others might (or not) infer to be "clueless" by their believing those rumors are not any WP editors i know of, but rather the people believing the rumor -- those whose views the language i found and interfered with was taking issue with. No one on WP seems to have recently (nor AFAIK ever) asserted that rumor. AFAI can see, you were concerned to preserve in the Dab seems in fact also intended to contradict that, uh, clueless rumor. How could you be harmed by my agreement with you that the rumor is presumably false?

Your citation of CIV seems misplaced, since AFAI can tell, you see it as violated specifically -- apparently solely -- by what you are misdescribing as PA; it may be valuable to you to review that policy, which begins

This page in a nutshell: Comment on content, not on the contributor.

Since you cited both AGF and CIV, you can be presumed to grasp that PAs against other editors would constitute bad faith. So it seems clear to me that you were required, before accusing me of

hurl[ing] such epithets at [you] and other editors

to

1. assume good faith and its implications,
2. thus, in this case, give serious consideration to the possibility that i meant only what my words said, and
3. if and only if you find that implausible, state your reasons for believing i meant something hidden behind the words i had chosen.

It cannot see how you could have met the second of those requirements and produced this result;

more to the point, it is a fact that you have lodged your accusations without citing their basis, beyond stating that my statements mean something other than what the meaning of the words i used implies. And that means that at best, you have claimed to read my mind; i consider that in itself to be an unacceptable personal attack.
This informs you that i regard everything you have said in point 3 of your immediately preceding msg

1. to be an invalid comment on my behavior as your colleague, and
2. to have a claim on my attention only for the purpose of making clear, at least to you, your error.

If you feel the need of further attention from me in the matter of your point 3, you should start from scratch on it.
--Jerzy•t 06:41, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Consummation (usage)

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Consummation (usage), suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

Wikipedia is not a dictionary and this is not an encyclopaedia article.

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. DanielRigal (talk) 21:31, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

• As the article is nothing like a dict entry, and in many ways like Fuck, I (pronoun), and others, and as you offered a "proof by blatant assertion" of its unsuitability, i found your stated concern unhelpful. But i did poke further into DICT than i recall having done before, and commend to you the essay User:Xyzzyplugh/Articles about words (a.k.a. WP:Articles about words). I find that approach to word-articles persuasive, and besides removing the ProD tag, i am moving the pg to my user space, without prejudice to its either developing into a future article or ending up just one of my knick-knacks.
  I'd be interested in any substantive thots you have in the matter.
  --Jerzy•t 05:31, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
  

James Humphreys

Howdy! Thanks for your message James Humphreysis now a functioning disambiguation page and does not need to be deleted! If the suggestion about speedly deletion is still out there perhaps we can close the matter and keep the page in being. thanks familytree101 (talk) 01:02, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

James Hinton

Thanks for leaving me a message about Hinton. To be frank with you, I expect the reference to Hinton's book Women, Social Leadership, and the Second World War: Continuities of Class was picked up through a google book search about the British Housewives League, Lovelock or Crisp and added as suggested further reading rather than a specific reference. I am interested in history, historians and historiography. I recently put up a stub about historian John Tosh but it has fallen foul of the 'notability' brigade which could prove fatal. So I am certainly not going to be the person who A7s your article on Hinton. Best of luck.

Regards --Graham Lippiatt (talk) 00:55, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

#4

Heya there, blank spaces guy! :) Regarding this edit, the okrug is (or was, rather) called "#4", but the naming conventions require that we use "municipal okrug #4" (same reasoning as why the article on, say, Harghita County is not called simply "Harghita"—you wouldn't deny inclusion were someone to start a "Harghita" disambig page, would you?). In fact, "Municipal okrug 4" was the name of the article before the okrug was renamed and the article moved to its present name (Semyonovsky Municipal Okrug). Hence, to remain consistent with the overall naming scheme for these okrugs (see mostly red links here), "municipal okrug #4" should be the description of the entry, as it would be the case for something like "Harghita County" or "Biysky District", were they needed to be included on a disambig page. Removing the entry altogether based on a guess which you yourself don't know is correct or not (based on the "if" clause in your revert summary) seems, forgive me a negative implication, as if you simply don't like me or something. Surely that's not the reason, but I am having trouble coming up with a more reasonable explanation. Care to help me clear this misunderstanding? Please?

As far as the blank space bloat goes, I urge you to consider the needs of the fellow editors who occasionally utilize devices with screens of limited sizes (smartphones, pocket PCs, netbooks, and even some laptops all qualify). The more white space shows up in the editing area (which, mind you, itself does not fit too well into the screens of the devices I mentioned above), the harder it is to do any useful editing. Blank spaces after asterisks and in the headers aren't that bad (albeit even in that department every little bit would help), and, as you see, I did not touch them this time, having remembered your profusive love towards them; but double and triple blank lines most certainly are, erm, unhelpful.

With these points in mind, I urge you to review your revert, and I would sure appreciate whatever response (or rebuttal :) you can supply in return. Thanks a bunch!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 20:31, January 8, 2009 (UTC)

• Re #4:
  Ëzh (Am i too far wrong in pronouncing that in one syllable, "YAWZH", in my mind?), if i were to dislike you, it would never be "simple" [wink], and so far you seem not only well behaved but in fact likable. And i also feel sure we can deal with this in terms of the content and its function, rather than personalities.
  Your concern abt NC should be essentially irrelevant (exception below), and i hope that is not confusing you. NC concerns only the titles of articles, not how we talk abt them; the whole concept of piping, and the preference for nouns, are evidence of that. (That doesn't make the format you want wrong; it just means that that reason for wanting it is unsound.)
  The exception i speak of is that NC can be important in determining what pages can have entries on a Dab page. While IMO there is some leeway, the stated purpose of an entry on 4 (disambiguation) is to provide a lk to the most encyclopedic info we have on a topic whose article -- if it existed/exists and if 4 were not as (or nearly as) reasonably the most deserving contender for that title. (Or, with the convenience of users in mind, for "Four" or "#4", etc.)
  When i found an entry beginning "Municipal okrug #4, ...", i assumed this was just a misunderstanding of the need to indicate what form of evocation of four-ness a user would have encountered that leads them to expect encyclopedic information at 4 about what they heard or saw was about. In this case, users should not be distracted by a long word like "municipal" nor a foreign one like "okrug" before being completely free to focus on the fact that the invocation of fourness begins with a pound sign, while the one of interest to them is always unsuffixed and always spelled out rather than a digit. Rather than assume it was on the page by mistake, i assumed it is sometimes called "#4", short for "Municipal okrug #4" (and, tho you have not raised the effect of it, that failure to explicitly associate #4 directly with m.o. would have no significant effect of preventing anyone seeking the topic in question by looking under 4, Four, or 四 (which may make sense to you, tho it appears for me as an icon presumably representing 56DB base 16) from realizing the article Semyonovsky Municipal Okrug is the most likely article they need. (For the record, if the Dab misleads them about formal or even reasonable usage, it's the job of the article to make things clear enough to counteract that: we do enuf removing of editors' efforts to shoehorn their fascinating related info into Dab that anyone tries to glean info from the Dab that isn't in the article deserves to look like a fool.
  When you objected to referring to "#4" and insisted on "Municipal okrug #4", i inferred the likelihood my original deduction was wrong, checked the article for evidence that #4 would be used without the rest, and not finding took your objection to heart.
  I don't question the possibility of a third interpretation of the situation besides the two you've already objected to. But i don't want to bear the continuing burden of defending a routine edit or absolving you for a counter-revert, so if you still want the entry to change, i ask that you explain the basis for that on the talk page of either 4 (disambiguation) or Semyonovsky Municipal Okrug, making reference to this talk page section, rather than treating this as a problem between two editors.
  --Jerzy•t 05:32, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
  
• Re spacing:
  Single blank spaces that do not affect the rendering, between syntactic elements of the markup, are a substantial labor saving device for common editing configurations, and for reasonable ones. Editing where they are a burden is a bad decision for reasons other than the spaces, and that burden's amelioration by their absence would be far less valuable than their presence in sensible editing situations is.
  Triple blank lines (4 newlines in a row) are AFAI can imagine a slip of the keyboard if they occur in my edits. With my white-bread configuration (Windows FireFox), double blank lines (3 newlines in a row) between a block of entries and the following heading make a strikingly different and clearer visual impression of the logical structure of the page, which i believe to be of value to readers. I believe that qualified cognitive and perceptual psychologists, and graphic designers, will testify to their value, and i await evidence to the contrary.
  I do think the concerns you raise are worth addressing, but not with the priority you are suggesting for them. I have two basic thots in the context of the case at hand:

1. While effective editing is good for the users, convenience for users is the gold standard and convenience for editors is a secondary consideration.
2. While in the long run we may have to respond to the needs of mobile and other small-screen users,
   1. for now, that's on the back burner, as the existence of http://wapedia.mobi/en/4_(disambiguation) suggests;
   2. if WP should choose to obviate Wapedia, it would be foolish to do so by destructively shoehorning all content into a form optimized for small-format, and instead users would have to provide an indication (e.g. prefs or URL dependency) to the server what format is suitable them, in which case collapsing white-space would be an obvious automated transformation of page content.
   3. If someone wants to edit WP via small-format, it would be very valuable for them to have to take an action that would identify that fact to the server. Then those edits can be subjected to heightened review, to catch the blunders they are likely to make by figuratively trying do brain surgery in the dark.

--Jerzy•t 05:32, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Jerzy! To first cast the formalities aside, yes, "Ëzh" is fine (albeit, technically, since it is in singular, is not entirely correct, but I care not for such minor things), and you got the pronunciation right, too.

Regarding your detailed and well-structured reply (which I, by the way, much appreciate), lest you happen to think you've just beaten a length record for a reply to an inquiry dealing with a seemingly trivial matter, I assure you that you have not :) In my dealings with other MOSDAB literalists I happened to get far lengthier responses to even more trivial inquiries. I'm itching to point you to an example, but, come to think of it, it would not be a great idea, if only not to embarass those MOSDAB folks any further. Nor am I willing to waste more of your and my valuable time, so I'm going to try to be more concise when addressing the issues you addressed above (even though conciseness is one virtue that keeps eluding me).

Anyhoo, let me start from the bottom of today's agenda—white spaces. Like I said before, while I almost always try to get rid of them when I have to edit an article anyway (and "anyway" here is a key word), I don't make a fetish out of it. Seeing others systematically making edits dealing entirely with blank spaces and nothing else never ceases to amaze me (think just how boring life of those folks must be, if blank spaces is all they can think about in a project dealing with pretty much everything in the world!), but oh well, we all have our vices. My main point was that while keeping the white spaces is undoubtedly of some use and the cause of some inconveniences, so is their removal. I find white spaces distracting and stealing valuable space from the edit box (which has limited dimensions even on biggest screens); you find them helpful for cutting/pasting and aesthetically pleasing (which makes me happy that I'll probably never have to see the inside of your house; but I digress). This, however, is precisely the reason why MOS gives no explicit preference to either style, although, of course, consistency within any given article is desirable. Thus, to change from one style to another (either way) is no big deal; to stupidly revert-war over it is. White spaces make you happy? You are a fairly productive and an established editor in good standing; I'll be happy to oblige you with a concession this minor! As long as one does not get so unhealthily obsessed with small stuff like this as to go after the person with an opposite preference, I'm cool. White spaces making a "strikingly different and clearer visual impression of the logical structure of the page"? Just as you "await evidence to the contrary", I am yet to see evidence in support of that claim (just how much white space is needed in order not to make things look ridiculous instead of "strikingly clearer"?). Or perhaps all that white space affects me to the point that I can't take in the actual content clearly. Surely I am not the only weirdo who perceives these things this way?

Now, off to the substance of our conversation—the dreaded municipal okrug #4. You have raised some valid and interesting points, but you either did not understand what I tried to convey, or I failed to convey my point clearly (which, considering the number of words in my post, should be of no surprise). Let's try this again; from a different angle.

Suppose that you actually need to find the article about the municipal okrug #4—I'm going to abbreviate it to mo4 for the sake of saving space (no some pun intended). While "municipal" is indeed a long word, and "okrug" is a foreign one, they nevertheless both provide a clue as to what one is actually seeking. In that sense, this qualifier is no different than "Isère" (in Four, Isère) or "New York City Subway service" (in 4 (New York City Subway service)). In fact, you may recognize the word "okrug" when you see it on a page, but not necessarily recall it off the top of your head or get its spelling right on the first try. Listing "municipal okrug #4" on a disambig page helps readers find the entry much faster if all they remember is the #4 designation and have the word "okrug" buried somewhere in their passive memory. If you are looking for an article about mo4, chances are you'll find it via a disambig page, just as it is virtually impossible to avoid the city (disambiguation) disambig if what you are looking for is the City of London article. "Mo4" is just as helpful as Channel 4—according to your line of argument, should that be changed to "4, a British television channel"? Wouldn't the users be distracted by the word "Channel" preceding "4"? Not if they are looking for an entry about a channel! Would the users be distracted by the words "municipal okrug" preceding "#4"? Not if they are looking for an entry about a municipal okrug!

Now, for an alternative example, as well as to illustrate my point further, what is the easiest way to find the fourth administrative district of Paris (which has about the same population as mo4 of St. Petersburg)? Try it now (it is not listed on 4 (disambiguation)), and let me know how many steps it took you. Wouldn't it be easier to find this entry on "4 (disambiguation)" instead? Imagine now how hard it would be to find if the Paris administration (inspired, perhaps, by the St. Petersburg example) suddenly decided to give the city's administrative districts proper names, and we had to move the articles to new titles. Can you see my point? If you can, please restore mo4 on the 4 (disambiguation) page (and perhaps even add the district of Paris to the list), if not, I'll be happy to elaborate further, providing you ask me questions.

Darn, this did not turn out to be as short as I hoped. Hopefully it will not prevent you from posting a response, though :) Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:49, January 9, 2009 (UTC)

P.S. Speaking of the article's previous title, the pound sign was omitted because of technical constraints put on article titles (Municipal Okrug #4 link will lead you to Municipal Okrug, with the "#4" part truncated). The number sign (№, or # in the version of English I speak), however, is a part of the official name, which is shown in the lede. Just thought this point might need a clarification.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:04, January 9, 2009 (UTC)

• _ _ As to white space, please forgive me for pretending that i'm seriously considering marketing electonic devices that suppress the rests in rendering digital recordings of music, and text rendering software that not only discards all the spaces, but also displays adjacent letters in contact with each other. Butwewerenttalkingaboutallspacingbutabout n o n u n i f o r m s p a c i n g s o i f y o u t h i n k i m b e i n g a b s u r d h o w w e l l d o e s u n i f o r m h o r i z o n t a l s p a c i n g w o r k f o r y o u?
  _ _ I think i'm probably a "MoSDab literalist" even tho there are parts of the guidelines that i, uh, neglect bcz i consider them broken and expect that exhibiting the alternative will help raise questions that i'm not that good at raising explicitly. Most editors don't think seriously about the many aspects of the distinction between Dabs and articles, altho in some senses that's as stupid as not paying attention to the distinction between Rdrs and articles. Someone has to, and it's probably always going to be a source of occasional friction, just as people have attitudes that are both unjustifiable and fully justified, about prostitutes and proctologists.
  _ _ I'm sorry, but "actually need to find the article about the municipal okrug #4" doesn't elucidate any distinction for me from what we've already labored over, and i think i really need to stop trying to parse these distinctions any further.
  _ _ So without getting further into detail, i'll note that

  _ _ Four, Isere or its diacritical-marked target is a good article title while 4 (New York City Subway service) is a lousy one,
  _ _ until someone is concerned enuf to fix the 2nd of them, each is a good "bare" Dab entry that i would not have wanted to change and might have changed something else into, and
  _ _ a foreign place name (anglicized or not) is quite a different thing in this context from a foreign term of art (like okrug).

_ _ Municipal Okrug #4 is interesting; i didn't think of that despite having to work out how to address this section; Municipal Okrug .234 doesn't do what i hoped.
_ _ BTW, "No." is probably widely understood by monolingual English speakers, tho i think its use has declined (in at least my fantasies, since the 1920s). I asked my mother to explain it to me the first time i saw it, and she, tho not highly educated, succeeded without apparent effort. My primary dictionary lists it, explained (something i never knew until now) as abbr'g numero, the ablative [case] (WTF ever that case means) of numerus in Latin. (It seems to me that many Americans may learn to understand it from context and perhaps influenced by the borrowing from Spanish of numero uno into American slang for "number-one", e.g., "that's numero uno" meaning "that's first class" or "team numero uno" for "number-one-ranked team".) So IMO it would not be a bad idea to use Municipal Okrug No. 4 as an article's (not just a Rdr's) title, esp'ly since i think you implied it parallels the Russian original.
_ _ Also BTW, Municipal Okrug or Municipal Okrug (disambiguation) probably should be a Dab-like "soft redirect"; ask me if you are interested and can't already picture what i mean.

--Jerzy•t 19:50, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

As to white spaces, I am willing to put that behind us. I understand that you wanted to write a sufficiently sarcastic response to my sufficiently sarcastic explanation, and yes, congratilations are in order—you have succeeded (although, ironically, I discovered that textwhichisspacedlikethis, for me at least, is a lot more readable t h a n s o m e t h i n g t h a t i s s p a c e d l i k e t h i s. Not to mention space savings and time it took to type both versions :)). Anyhoo, unless you have anything more to add (or are simply willing to excersise your sarcastic side some more—which I am OK with, as the display is quite enjoyable), I am going to consider this part of the discussion closed (with no consensus).

MOSDAB literalists, funny enough, I count myself among those as well, although I think that not just some parts of the MOSDAB guidelines are broken, but pretty much all of them. Which, as you imagine, makes for quite a combination on certain occasions. The bottom line—I believe that when MOSDAB was 90% shorter, it worked a lot better than it does now. Go figure.

As for the "actual need to find the article about the municipal okrug #4", if you pardon me my insistence on continuing this thread (but only because I do consider it important), I just want to emphasize once more that the "4 (disambiguation)" page is the most logical place to go if one's intent is to find a division of St. Petersburg called "#4". Having "municipal okrug" in front of "#4" in the disambig entry only helps readers find what they need faster. So, basically, one would type "4" into the search box, click out to the disambig page, and find the mo4 article by quickly scanning the list. If you consider what it takes to find a similar article about Paris' fourth administrative district (go to Paris, scroll up and down until you figure out which section deals with the administrative divisions of the city, find the main article for that, and only then locate what you need). To me, that is torture, but hey, at least no concessions needed to be made so our beloved mosdab remains unviolated in any way! Anyway, since I didn't quite get you final final position on this, could you, please, clarify it once more? (I am basically interested whether you are against restoring the mo4 entry, yourself or with my help, or not). Thanks much.

Regarding "No." vs. "№" vs. "#", redirects from the first two would, of course, make all the sense (so would a redirect from the last one, if it were possible). No one simply got around to creating those (which is all too common in Wikipedia—most articles don't get nearly as many redirects as they should). I have no problem with redirects of all sorts; in fact, the more, the merrier (as long as they exhibit at least some semblance of making sense). The decision on which of the variants to use as primary (No., #, №, or just plain number), however, was simply an arbitrary selection on my part, one which I stuck with when naming the rest of the similar articles). If someone cares enough to move them to "No. XXX" instead, I don't mind it one bit (as long as they do a thourough and not a half-assed job at it).

Municipal okrug (note the capitalization) actually already redirects to okrug, and for a good reason, too (the term may refer to municipal okrugs of St. Petersburg, but also to any of the numerous urban okrugs throughout Russia). Still, having a dab page instead might be a good idea. I've added this task to page 357 of the "low priority" section of my to-do list. Perhaps in a few years the page will be created, providing this idea doesn't occur to someone sooner than that or if you happen to want to take a break from whitespacing Wikipedia and take care of this yourself (if you do, I won't touch any white spaces in it, promise!).

Anyway, in conclusion, despite having produced (another) long rant, basically the only thing I still want to get a response on is the one about restoring the entry you removed. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 21:00, January 9, 2009 (UTC)

• I'm disappointed with myself that i was confusing about how little importance i put on the matter, in the significance i gave to clarifying that the civility of the process is being maintained.
  _ _ My belief abt my editing practices is that

i made the two edits bcz i thot each time that you had acted under the burden of a straightforward misconception, which i could quickly clear up, and

if you had reverted again, i'd (or so i introspect) have waited for the resolution of the discussion before further edits, and left it as it was if it reached the point where i became unwilling to further pursue the discussion of the core matter.

_ _ I don't pretend that you are in that same objective position, as there are two relevant differences: i in fact did get in the last word on the Dab page, and you remain willing to present further details that i am not even reading.
_ _ Nevertheless, i urge you to follow my previous advice: get some other interested stranger involved in the discussion, via the Dab's talk page, and in doing so at least acknowledge the background we've created, even if you don't choose to copy this to the Dab's talk page. Otherwise, despite your caution and adequate courtesy so far, you risk contributing to assessments of your editorship as involving driving your interlocutors away from the discussion, by a greater willingness to invest effort well beyond the importance of the change being discussed, rather than by convincing reasoning.
_ _ Finally, while i am loath to comment on any new assertions, i have to say that if you really are convinced WP is going so far wrong that MoSDab is worthless, i urge you to either stay away from editing Dabs, or seriously reconsider editing here at all. Whether what requires that is your fault or that of others is far less important than the eventual frustration that you are, probably, doomed to end only by departing.
--Jerzy•t 00:12, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Jerzy! In the heat of our discussion, I neglected to mention the fact that I am going to be on vacation (and, consequently, away from Wikipedia) for most of the next week, which is the main reason why I did not seek an input by an uninvolved party—no point of involving someone else if I ain't gonna be there to heed the advice! (The other major reason, incidentally, was a hope to have this resolved before my vacation, but oh well, so much for that now). Rest assured, I intend to continue this thread upon return, at which time I will also address the rest of the points in your post immediately above this one. I hope the break will not be much of an inconvenience to you. Best,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 03:51, January 11, 2009 (UTC)

Splitting the World War I list of flying aces

The other half of this dialogue is at User talk:Jerzy#Splitting the World War I list of flying aces User talk:Georgejdorner#Splitting the World War I list of flying aces.^{--Jerzy•t 04:03, 22 January 2009 (UTC)06:05, 22 January 2009 (UTC)}
Jerzy,

Thank you for a simple solution that I (and others) had overlooked. It preserves the table in its entirety while making it editable. An elegant solution, good sir.

Also, thanks for the warning on misplaced aces in the 5 and 6 victory level. I will deal with moving them to their correct locations. I was rather tired by the effort of listing over 1,000 more names and had not yet worked my way through double checking for errors. I do intend to work my way down to check and correct my work in its entirety, but I needed a break before I carried on.

Georgejdorner (talk) 20:15, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

---

Jerzy,

The systematic errors I had made giving Italian aces 6 victories instead of 5 has been corrected. Again, many thanks for calling the errors to my attention.

You may be interested to know that I have checked the list down through 14 victories. That includes correcting Service Branch for many UK pilots and filling in military decorations and honors in the Notes column.

Eventually, of course, I shall trudge my weary way down to Edmund Zink and his 5 victories. Eventually. However, your editorial work does make the task easier for me. Thanks for that also.

Georgejdorner (talk) 23:04, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

---

Jerzy,

I must confess that I lack the technical background to understand the nuances (or even the meaning) of sortable wikitables. That's why I am a contributor who turns to editors for such.

I do know that there is a List of World War I aces from Canada. I assumed that it was possible to sort the master list into sub-lists reflecting other national lists, or sub-lists by flying services.

Georgejdorner (talk) 05:24, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

---

Jerzy,

You are talking to an old coot who is struggling to upgrade his Macintosh knowledge from Operating System 7.1 to OS 10.5, while teaching himself Microsoft Word as a replacement for Microsoft Works. I don't have any mental capacity left over to comprehend wikitables or file hierarchies or whatever, so you can see why I am so dependent on the kindness of editors.

At any rate, if what I propose is feasible and useful, someone will do it--or do an improved version of it, as you did with the editing of the original master list.

Georgejdorner (talk) 07:03, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

---

Jerzy,

So then, as I understand you, splitting the master list into sub-lists is actually a manual process, and cannot be accomplished by a bot, or by some other handy trick of computer magic?

Georgejdorner (talk) 05:05, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Redirect of Jan Novak (Writer)

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Jan Novak (Writer), by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Jan Novak (Writer) is a redirect to a non-existent page (CSD R1).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Jan Novak (Writer), please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 19:20, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

MOS

I'm collecting here the three msgs i've left on this subject, in the belief that in the unlikely event it needs more discussion among the four editors, the hopefully wasted effort i make now would turn out to have avoided a lot of confusion and effort.
--Jerzy•t 00:11, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

• I left the following at User talk:Dodger67#Disruptive reversion, as a result of the 4th of 4 consecutive and related edits on MoS, which was summarized by

  Undid revision 265339458 by Kevin McE (talk) Because changing it per se is not justified. This is a style guide not a news page.

The edit you reverted on MoS was harmless, and arguably had some value, even tho i would not have made or encouraged it. Your pointless reversion was a disruptive edit, gives the appearance of stemming from PoV, and is likely to trigger counter-reversion. If you should revert a second time, i will block you for edit warring in accordance with the provision of 3RR that says 3 is not always permissible.
--Jerzy•t 21:26, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

• I left the following at User talk:Kevin McE#Obama on MoS, as a result of the 3rd of 4 edits, which was summarized by

  Reverted to revision 265312245 by Dank55; It could have said Lincoln or Mitterand, but why would it be inappropriate to use the most high profile current holder of the title?. (TW)

I would not have reverted your edit to MoS, which i found to be unnecessary but harmless, and i have threatened with blocking the editor who reverted you. On the other hand, i urge you against a potential edit war, and hope you will recognize that the moment has passed when you were the right person to take care of that. (I predict someone else will do, perhaps without noticing you did, that same edit; it'll be interesting to see!) Thanks, and keep cool.
--Jerzy•t 21:35, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

• (The 2nd edit, which i noticed between my preceding and succeeding talk contribs, was by User:Dodger67, and summarized by

  (Undid revision 265312245 by Dank55 (talk) So what? That doesn't invalidate the point. It could even have said Lincoln or Mitterand.

• I left the following at User_talk:Dank55#Obama on MoS, as a result of the 1st of 4 edits, which was summarized by

  →Titles: Obama is president now

As i look further at the history of MoS, i see your contribution, which makes it clear that you are the most innocent of 3 editors, where i thot there were only 2 involved. Please read what i said at User_talk:Kevin_McE#Obama_on_MoS, which i'd have said to you instead if my research had been a little less haphazard.
Since this is really part of a potential 4-way discussion, i intend to collect my 3 msgs on my talk page; i trust you won't mind breaking your Editnotice promise by replying on my page if an MoS-related reply seems needed. (But -- of course(?) -- i'll look here in case you comment on Editnotice.)
P.S. Tnx for your Editnotice msg, which uses a needed feature i was unaware of.
--Jerzy•t 21:58, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Dank55 replied as follows, to my leaving him one of the msgs above (but before my copying to this talk page all three msgs & adding the MoS-edit-history info).
--Jerzy•t 00:11, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

• Hiya Jerzy, replying here per your request. I wasn't aware there was an edit war at MOS over "President Obama"; I ran my eye down the page to make sure there hadn't been any other edits in a while in that section (except for one IP edit yesterday that changed Obama to Bush ... perfectly alright, since Bush 43 was president, yesterday), didn't find any that mentioned that section (now "Titles of people"), and changed it to "President Obama" soon after Obama became president. I won't make any more edits to the page, and I don't know what people are edit-warring over, but it's unlikely that a bunch of grammar fascists (and I include myself!) would allow "President Bush" to stand. Per AP Stylebook and many other current style guides, "former President X" would be better, but there are 2 "former President Bush"s, so I don't know how people will resolve that; maybe "Bush 43"? At any rate, per current American journalistic practices, "President Bush" is wrong, so I don't think that will survive. But I'll leave it alone. (Watchlisting) - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 23:02, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Yes, Dan, in the interim i noticed the reversion of the "premature" GWB->BO shift by an IP at

    17:00, 19 January 2009.

  I looked for a while for the edit the IP was reverting, but after learning it was Obama by

  00:24, 11 January 2009

  and Bush at

  22:51, 27 December 2008

  i've lost my curiosity about when and how many changes there were in between.
  --Jerzy•t 00:11, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
  

  My 2c worth about this issue: I reverted what I believed was the first change to what was previously a stable sentence. I couldn't care less what president's name is used to illustrate the point being made. (For the record I am not American and I am utterly indifferent to the names of the occupants (past and present) of the White House.) My objection to what I believe was the first change from "Bush" to "Obama" is/was purely a matter of principle that there is no valid reason to change it at all. If I had been the original author of that sentence I would have considered using a fictional name so as to avoid the possibility of exactly this situation arising. However when I am accused of pushing a POV when in fact I believe and stated in my edit notes that I was defending an editorial principle (Don't change stuff without a good reason) I tend to lose interest in the matter. I now consider this matter closed. Roger (talk) 08:42, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

  • (After a moment's confusion, i note you are "Roger-Dodger", a combination i've long enjoyed!)
    I don't think you should regard my statement that your action "gives the appearance of stemming from PoV" as an accusation that that appearance reflected your intention, and i made that statement bcz i think the appearance, independent of intention, is a problem for the project bcz it may intensify edit warring. I hope that clarification eliminates any problem i created.
    In, i hope, a spirit similar to yours in stating your recent reasons along with your considering the matter closed, i offer my own view that the reversion of a change made "without a good reason" contradicts (in the absence of a better reason than that lack) its own reasoning, and is -- especially when twice performed, as i now realize was the case -- a claim, based on inadequate evidence, to be a better judge of good reasons than the reverted colleague(s), and thereby a CIV violation. I hasten to add that IMO a declaration of considering the matter closed, such as you have made, goes a very long way toward remedying the damage.
    I appreciate your weighing in, and i'm pleased with the new situation. Thank you.
    --Jerzy•t 09:28, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
    

Jørgen

Reformatted for ease of reference.--Jerzy•t 22:20, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi. No big deal, but regarding this edit:

1. I couldn't work out why you removed [1] *{{lookfrom|Jørgen}} and [2] *[[George (disambiguation)]].
   
2. Also, why did you change it from hindis to disambig?
   
3. Also, there are a dozen other "George"-related pages using an opening sentence similar to

   '''Jørgen''', the Danish name for [[George (given name)|George]], may refer to: .

   Why change this one and make it inconsistent with the others?
   

4. And how is Jørgen "related to" George?
   
5. And how did what was there not conform to MoSDab and Dab?
   
6. And what is it about what you have put there that now does conform to MoSDan and Dab?

I guess I'm rather puzzled by your edit ... Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 12:04, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

• [7.] Also, although I approve of what you did to Jurgen, I don't see how what was there did not conform to MoSDab, and don't see how what you did makes any difference to conformity. However, I am more than happy to be enlightened. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 12:11, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your interest. Having written quite a bit, it occurs to me that i never quite said "You should realize that my intention was not to rewrite the list of given-name bearers that you started, but to do right by the Dab title that you'd misused for it, and let those interested go forward on their own with your project (which you'd mis-templated as a Dab), under a different title and with a different template." But i'll respond below, under my transcriptions of each of your resppective points.
    1. I couldn't work out why you removed *{{lookfrom|Jørgen}} and *[[George (disambiguation)]].
       

       1. I removed the "lookfrom" bcz on a Dab, people come looking for lks to articles whose titles could have been the unsuffixed title, and lookfroms seldom produce such titles, even when the lf's arg is not a given name. (There is, however, an box (info-box?) template widely used on given-name pages that includes a lookfrom lk; IMO it is irresponsible to use lookfrom directly where a template including it would be appropriate, since its use in, say, a "See also" unnecessarily invites the impression that such use may be appropriate in most See also secns, when in fact it is appropriate in most of them.)
          IIRC i was not so cavalier as to simply remove the lookfrom: i looked today at at least one lookfrom; i think that it was All pages with titles beginning with Jørgen rather than the related names, and that i looked at the bio that IIRC is the sole lk from All pages with titles beginning with Jørgen de, thinking he might be a medieval or Renaissance figure often referred to in formal writing as "Jørgen" (see below, in my pt 1 in my response to your pt 2 for my motivation); he turns out to be a modern.
       2. George (disambiguation) is an unfounded Dab entry bcz users looking for articles that could have been titled "Jørgen" are ill-served by being sent to a page made up mainly of people who would never be referred to in an English 'pedia as "Jørgen". People who are known both as, say, "Jørgen Smith" and "George Smith", should be explicitly listed on both the Jørgen and the George given-name pages. That's one of the ways a 'pedia differs from a "smart" (a.k.a. scattershot) search engine; sadly perhaps, that requires work from editors. (BTW, George, altho it had a lookfrom for "George", and needed both a Dab-CU tag and my

          needs de-confusion with the [[Items in the "If it's not <<YOUR FAVORITE WORD HERE>>, it's crap" store]] article

          summary, doesn't include any lks to bios of people with George as surname!)

    2. Also, why did you change it from hindis to disambig?
       

       Two reasons:

       1. My repeatedly implied and AFAI can recall unchallenged understanding is that {{hndis}} applies only to full names: if there multiple people named Jørgen Borg, then Jørgen Borg would be a valid hndis; unless there are multiple Jørgens, worthy of bios, for each of whose bio Jørgen would be an acceptable title (but for the the others being at least comparably notable), then a hndis Jørgen or Jørgen (disambiguation) would be acceptable.
       2. A hndis is barely distinguishable from a {{disambig}}, while a {{given name}} is a form of {{SIA}} and barely related to Dabs and hndises. The stated plan of "populating" the page, based on what is at the "lookfrom", indicated a "given name" page was contemplated. I would probably support a guideline that such pages are unencyclopedic (and i work on them only where there is non-trivial content whose removal would be un-WP:CIV but is occupying a title more deserved by another topic), but i agree they are not prima facie deletable at this time. However, i cannot recall any complaint about the multiple occasions where i have treated them as, prima faciem being not the primary topic whenever there is a candidate of another kind, and moved them to a title suffixed with "(given name)". The page was no more useful as it stood than if it had been put on the talk page as a solicitation for development efforts, and it was setting a bad example in a number of ways; i didn't think the effort of putting on the talk page "A colleague wants to build a page listing bios of people with given name Jørgen" would be worthwhile, nor that more effort would be better spent: anyone who knows it's a name is 3/4 of the way to a better stub.

    3. Also, there are a dozen other "George"-related pages using an opening sentence similar to

       '''Jørgen''', the Danish name for [[George (given name)|George]], may refer to: .

       Why change this one and make it inconsistent with the others?
       

       If for no other reason, bcz this one was tagged for Dab-Cu in the Js and none of the others were.
       I do recall looking at a handful of others, some of which (e.g. perhaps "Joris") were news to me -- don't recall exactly why i found them -- and it seems to me most or all were templated other than as Dabs. Dabs are supposed to use a highly stereotyped style of lead line; their style should be a mismatch relative to given-name pages.

    4. And how is Jørgen "related to" George?
       

       Uh, in pretty much the same sense i assume you meant "related" when you since used, it in the hyphenated word in your preceding point, #4#3.
       I regarded it as a little weaker than "equivalent", and the strongest term i could quickly think of, that avoids the offensive implication that everyone called "Jørgen" can just as well be called "George", as if every non-native English speaker will think treating them like they're just another Yank or Brit is an act of respect for who they are or want to be seen as.

    5. And how did what was there not conform to MoSDab and Dab?
       

       I'm not yet tired of responding, but i must go out. I'll expand this contrib & add a 2nd sig to it, probably within the next 6 hours. (09:00-ish): Sorry, what looked like a shorter request turned out to be a long one, and i'd forgotten an off-line commitment, and i have to sleep, and go out at some point after that.

    6. And what is it about what you have put there that now does conform to MoSDan and Dab?
    7. [As] to Jurgen, I don't see how what was there did not conform to MoSDab, and don't see how what you did makes any difference to conformity.

  --Jerzy•t 22:20, 27 09:02, 28 & 03:46, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
  

  • • The responses i've already provided should be helpful in getting you oriented to the subject of disambiguation, and may thereby help you learn whatever you are hoping for in what i've numbered as your points 5-7. Besides their being quite general, those questions stray from discussion of what the main-namespace pages' content should be, into what sounds like quibbles about a pair of edit summaries. Let's stick to what you think is either missing from or in the way of the Dab, from this point forward.
      --Jerzy•t 03:46, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
      

Jean Tatlock

Please meet me at Talk:Jean Tatlock for a quick discussion. - 4.240.165.183 (talk) 21:08, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Replied - 4.240.159.57 (talk) 05:50, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Hilton (given name)

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Hilton (given name), and it appears to be very similar to another wikipedia page: Hilton. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case. If you are intentionally moving or duplicating content, please be sure you have followed the procedure at Wikipedia:Splitting by acknowledging the duplication of material in edit summary to preserve attribution history.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 09:22, 28 January 2009 (UTC)