This is an archive of past discussions with User:Bkonrad. 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.

January 2006 to February 2006

Hi Bkonrad, I have a question about a category you created. Please see my post at Category talk:Foreign-language newspapers in the United States and respond there. (I want to make sure I'm not stepping on anybody's toes before I be bold and change something.) Cheers, --Tetraminoe 14:57, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Out of curiousity, why did you move Peche Island, Ontario, Canada to Peche Island? McNeight 02:04, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Naming Conventions recommends using disambiguating article titles only when necessary. I'm not aware of any other Peche Island, so it should be at the simplest name, rather than one with two unnecessary disambiguators. older≠wiser 02:08, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your edits - as a newcomer to these pages, I'm beginning to understand how these things are set up /s/ Bigturtle

Template:Infobox Biography has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#Template:Infobox Biography. Thank you. DreamGuy 07:30, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Disambiguation articles are not dictionary articles. This is made amply clear in many places. Please stop adding dictionary content to the encyclopaedia. The dictionary is right there. Your complaint that "it isn't in Wiktionary" is not an argument for mis-placing the work in the encyclopaedia instead. Please do lexicographical work in the correct project. If something isn't in Wiktionary, then edit Wiktionary to put it in. (It's a wiki.) Don't put it in Wikipedia instead. Uncle G

• I'm not the one who is removing information that is not available elsewhere. It is incumbent on YOU to put the information into Wiktionary rather than simply deleting it and hiding behind a facile claim of what Wikipedia is not. older≠wiser 02:20, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  • No, it's incumbent on the editor adding the content, which is you and the original author. I'm removing it because Wikipedia is not a dictionary, which is far from "a facile claim". (It's official policy, and a pretty fundamental part of our mission statement.) And I'm not putting it into Wiktionary because it is rubbish. You clearly didn't even read your own edit. Wiktionary can do better pronunciations than this from a standing start. Not only are you putting dictionary content into the wrong project, you are putting bad dictionary content into the wrong project. Please stop. Please adhere to our official policy that Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and please stop adding rubbish to Wikipedia just because Wiktionary doesn't have a pronunciation yet and you are unwilling to go to the correct project to add one. Uncle G 02:32, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but it is you who are removing content that is not available in Wiktionary. It is unconstructive to remove what you consider to be "dictionary" content and justify such removal by refering to Wiktionary when that content is not in Wiktionary. While you might consider it "rubbish", that is only your opinion. older≠wiser 02:42, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

And what is more Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary says absolutely nothing about pronunciation. Many Wikipedia articles include information about pronunciation. Unless you are willing to add the information to Wiktionary, you should stop removing it. older≠wiser 02:44, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert an article to a previous version more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. -- Dalbury^(Talk) 02:56, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Same to you my friend. older≠wiser 03:04, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Before you do things like moving pages around it might help to open up a discussion first. - Diceman 11:47, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

See Talk:Granite Island. older≠wiser 14:33, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

My apologies for trying to be a hardass with you yesterday. I have decided, for my own sanity, to take List of city nicknames in the United States off of my watchlist and worry about other things. -- Dalbury^(Talk) 19:40, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

No problem. I may have also been little too obsessive about the matter. I agree that contributors should provide sources, but for something like that list, especially where the nicknames are mentioned in the city corresponding article, it just seemed like the wrong place to be requesting sources. In a list like that (and this may not hold true for all types of lists) the list should match what it in the corresponding article--i.e., there is a carryover of sourcing from the main article. Just my opinion on it anyhow. older≠wiser 21:59, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

OK, we're not going to agree on this, but I'm not going to pursue it. I've got enough to keep me busy without picking fights over something I don't have much chance of changing. And I must say, I was surprised at the scoop and vehemence of the reaction to my nomination of the article for deletion. I'll just stay away from those issues in the future. -- Dalbury^(Talk) 22:04, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for correcting my attempt to get the Detroit categories fixed up. I've been eliminating category cycles all day and it isn't always obvious to me how exactly to break them. JonHarder 03:53, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I also do not think the article belongs in Govt. of Michigan category. See the dicussion at [1]. If you want to change the category you could do so by editing the template [U.S.A. State Congressional Delegation Article]. Just change the last line in the template. --DuKot 20:56, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your note on my talk page.

What you pointed out was a page transclusion, not a template transclusion, the intention being to remove the need to replicate certain types of disambiguation pages as both sections of lists and as separate pages. The experiment was short lived and I no longer do this primarily because I didn't have the time to work through a variety of potential consequences of using the method. I believe that further work down the road I started on would be fruitful, but I've now largely removed myself from what had become by the end of '05 a whirling mass of talon and tooth otherwise known as the disambiguation community. I'm contenting myself to attack biology-related stubs in a variety of ways now, at least for a few months. Thanks for bringing this to my attention, though ... I can assure you that there are very few other examples (if any) floating about. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 03:22, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I was fixing it as you reverted the page. It seems ok now. I don't know how that happened but check out the page now.MJCdetroit 20:55, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

You asked "Can someone please provide a concise statement about what this is about". I'll give my thoughts here, since last time I tried to answer this personal attacks came flooding out. Bascially, as I said at MOSDAB "the new seperation of disambiguation and abbreviation pages is violating consensus and has been implemented by one rogue editor William Allen Simpson". As far as I can tell, no one sees the merit in abbreviation pages, yet they have already been implemented (eg FAST). --Commander Keane 16:41, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, that is is about what I had thought, but I'm having a very hard time following the convoluted discussion. For someone who claims to have 30 years of experience with consensus based groups, it certainly doesn't show. older ≠ wiser 17:04, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Why do you want the same info in twice?--Light current 03:26, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I think total population is a highly significant detail and think it should be mentioned in the intro. If you really feel so strongly about removing duplicate info, I think you should remove the second occurance. older ≠ wiser 03:32, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I didn't see the faint copyright marking. I pulled it from a web site that stated the book was public domain, so I thought it was from the book. I have since replaced with , artwork I drew myself. Thanks! Iamvered 01:52, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

You may want to revisit the Thad McCotter discussion. Since it's linked to the RFC it's getting attention, and there's additional information. DrWitty 16:40, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for note on my user talk page about this. Although the category was not intended for user pages, I don't think there is any official hard-and-fast policy against putting user pages in the category. I am doing this as a mild form of protest, becuase I feel that this is a useless category which will be plagued with inaccuracies. Less famous, yet encyclopedically notable, people who die will likely not be removed in a timely fashion. Many living people will likely be left out. The category pages will become too large to be of any use. I also added it to the Jesus article, since the Christian belief of the resurrection would imply that he is still alive. This was reverted a few hours later. --Nelson Ricardo 16:27, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

On Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages):

William, are you saying that this change to Diet soda (piping an ambiguous link to C2 to the unambiguous Coca-Cola C2 was incorrect? Is so, then that is just 100% wrong. older ≠ wiser 13:14, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I requested an apology. You didn't do your homework.

Cut the condescending bullcrap. The only apology you'll get is that I'm sorry I couldn't understand your poorly explained objection above. older ≠ wiser 16:53, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Now, I demand an apology! This conduct is inappropriate for an administrator.

The first quote was after a clear, well written, 3-point list with exact diff references, and the further explanatory text:

1. "contrary to several existing guidelines"
2. "contrary to the other entry for C2 in the lists on that page"
3. The C2 abbreviations should have been expanded (not piped)
4. the overload of disambiguation instead of expansion is yet another reason why abbreviations should be treated differently.

The guidelines had already been listed in earlier (and later) discussion. You should be familiar with them by now. Yet, you have admitted that you'd not read the extensive history that I laboriously researched and detailed.

The only word that I can think of that might be subject to misunderstanding would be overload, a computer science term related to inheritance. I have no idea whether you have any computer science background. I assumed (perhaps incorrectly) that the person making the comments about script programming would know the meaning.

The second quote follows another, extremely detailed, word by word analysis of the problem space, with exact quotes from the guidelines.

You may find detailed information to be "condescending", but the need was your failure to actually read the previous information. I emphasize: your failure, not mine.

Speaking as somebody that has been doing anonymous IP work here for years, and knowing that there are far too many constantly morphing guidelines for anybody to remember them all, I'd expect that you would appreciate the effort I've made to carefully detail that information.

Speaking as an internationally recognized computer engineer with considerable experience in technical writing of well known international standards, and seeing that you claim training in that area, I'd hope that you had an appreciation for my work.

Speaking as a (life long) fellow Michigander, you and I might find common ground there. My family has been here since circa 1830s, and I have an interest in Michigan history and politics. Until reading your user page, just now, I had no idea that there was a Wikiproject for Michigan.

Indeed, I remember thanking you publically not long ago for contributing the congressional article for Lynn Rivers, which I was not able to contribute due to the usual restictions on personal interest.

Or perhaps you have an interest in Michigan law, where I recently won a Court of Appeals case on the Freedom of Information Act. I've spent far too long today on this, as I have a summary disposition oral argument to prepare for Wednesday.

Hopefully, you get the drift of my argument now, and will publically apologize on the page in question.

--William Allen Simpson 16:38, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Give it a rest William and take a chill pill. I will not apologize any further than what I have already. I do not think I am not alone in finding your manner presentation to be at times difficult to understand. I meant no offense with my comment -- you presented a diff for the page and indicated that you found it objectionable. It was NOT at all clear in the initial statement exactly what it was that you found objectionable about that diff. I found your response to my comments extremely condescending and rather offensive in on its own. older ≠ wiser 17:55, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Further to your views on the undeletion, you may be interested that the page was relisted on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of interesting or unusual place names (2nd nomination). Regards--A Y Arktos 10:51, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

You might want to look into the 2nd Wikipedia:Deletion_review#List_of_interesting_or_unusual_place_names. It appears that the "c. 25 for Overturn/Relist and c. 14 for endorse" outcome of the first wasn't clear for everyone. -- User:

Thank you for letting me know; it does seem odd at best, and possibly much worse. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:07, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

You replaced a table, showing a 6x6 township with easy-to-read numbering with an illustration that's highly confusing, because it's 8x8, and the numbering is faint and indistinct. While I agree that a good illustration would be better than the table, a bad illustration is worth less than nothing, because it contributes to misunderstanding. How about doing a DECENT illustration instead of using that decoration? ClairSamoht 05:03, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I guess tastes differ. I find that illustration to be pretty clear and a considerable improvement over the table. That's not to say there couldn't be a better one, but the main reason I used that one was because it was already available in Wikipedia. If you feel that illustration is unstaisfactory, then perhaps you should go looking for a better one. I've no problem with the one that is there. Cheers. older ≠ wiser 12:59, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi Bkonrad, you may not even remember making this edit, but it has become a source of controversy. Any chance you would like to weigh in on the debate? Kaldari 03:59, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Your final statement on the Nashville-Davidson (balance) issue is a double negative, and thus confusing. Could you reword it perhaps? Kaldari 18:08, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I took a look and I’m embarrassed that the map I made has such huge flaws in it. I believe that I’ve corrected them. Accidentally, I created a second file, Image:Indianaterr.PNG, which is the corrected map. Apparently I can’t delete the original, Image:Indianaterr.png, so I’d really appreciate if you could do that. Thanks Fay2 20:11, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Baldwin, Hoar & Sherman family has been proposed for deletion. Please see the article for details. NickelShoe 17:11, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Since you have previously taken an interest in links. Please be kind enough to vote for my new bot application to reduce overlinking of dates where they are not part of date preferences. Thanks. bobblewik 20:51, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Wow! I'm glad I cancelled the stuff I was thinking about posting. I'm puzzled that you also removed the phone numbers that were there previously (not mine).

I have an interest in Williamstown because I'm very involved in recent political developments. I'd love to put a link to our group's web site on Wikipedia, but somehow I doubt it is appropriate.

I'm new at this. Thanks for your understanding.

Wendellp