This is an archive of past discussions about 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.

Just a gentle reminder that WP:3RR even if you're right unless it's clear vandalism. The IPs edits to this page, while possibly misguided, are definitely not vandalism - they're sourced for a start. Although I broadly agree with your view about the age of the sources I think the IP does have a weak case. Dpmuk (talk) 20:54, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Would you please assist me and spotlight where in WP:MOSDAB is the advice that leads to the idea of preferring Cairo, New York (disambiguation) to Cairo, New York, and Kairo (disambiguation) to Kairo. —Anomalocaris (talk) 05:40, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have referenced WP:INTDABLINK, which is part of WP:DAB rather than WP:MOSDAB. Cheers, older ≠ wiser 14:31, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

OK, WP:INTDABLINK includes the following, which I read to call for Cairo, New York and Kairo to the forms with "disambiguation":

Redirects to disambiguation pages

The preceding paragraph does not apply to redirects to disambiguation pages for reasons other than signaling intentional links: do not create a double redirect, but make a redirect to the disambiguation page directly (thus Ann Hathaway, a redirect from alternative name, redirects directly to the disambiguation page Anne Hathaway and does not go via the redirect at Anne Hathaway (disambiguation)).

—Anomalocaris (talk) 17:25, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

• ---------
• Hello?
• --------- Anomalocaris (talk) 02:58, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not sure what question is left. older ≠ wiser 03:16, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

You said that you should have referenced WP:INTDABLINK instead of WP:MOSDAB. I responded with an excerpt from WP:INTDABLINK that I believe suggests that changes you made to Cairo (disambiguation) should not have been made. I expected you reply explaining why WP:INTDABLINK does support the changes you made, or admitting that it rejects those changes, in which case I would expect you to undo your edits to Cairo (disambiguation). Does that answer your question? —Anomalocaris (talk) 07:47, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I guess I didn't see that what you quoted clearly indicated anything with regards to Cairo (disambiguation). The relevant portion of WP:INTDABLINK is under the subheading How to link to a disambiguation page :

To link to a disambiguation page (rather than to a page whose topic is a specific meaning), link to the title that includes the text "(disambiguation)", even if that's a redirect – for example, link to the redirect America (disambiguation) rather than the target page at "America".

So in the case at hand, substitute Kairo (disambiguation) and "Kairo" for America (disambiguation) and "America" respectively. older ≠ wiser 01:44, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. I missed that paragraph and also didn't understand the intent of the "Ann Hathaway" business, but I understand it now. Looks like your changes to Cairo (disambiguation) are in compliance with Wiki-policy. I'm happy now. — Anomalocaris (talk) 08:46, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Our esteemed editors deleted the second article, and did a half-assed, inadequate and incomplete merge of the subject matter into the first. I was not given notice of any of this, despite having been a substantial contributor to the second article, and a smaller contributor to the first. This was SNAFU and perhaps FUBAR, but it is water over the Wikipedia dam. So I am not trying to reopen this. I would like access to the deleted article, which actually has a lot of references and citations that need to be in the second. I do not want to have to reinvent the wheel. If somebody would put it (or a link) onto my talk page it would be appreciated. Please give me a hand. Thanks. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 21:48, 6 January 2011 (UTC) Stan

It's pretty easy and you don't need to be an admin to access the history. Just click on the link to List of Michigan county name etymologies. Then from the List of counties in Michigan page, right under the title you should see (Redirected from List of Michigan county name etymologies) -- you can click on the link there to get to the redirect at the old title. Once there, you can click the View History link and access previous versions. This is direct link to the last version before it was redirected [1]. older ≠ wiser 23:33, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. I learn something everyday. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 00:26, 7 January 2011 (UTC) Stan

An article that you have been involved in editing, Fred Green, has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Paul McDonald (talk) 14:05, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I can see why you partially reverted my change, on rereading that part is somewhat stilted. However, I believe that the current text departs from the usual style for disambiguation pages in 2 important respects:

1. The blue link should link from the disambiguated word, per MOS:DAB#Linking to a primary topic: "When the ambiguous term has a primary topic but that article has a different title (so that the term is the title of a redirect), the primary topic line normally uses the redirect to link to that article:". I see no reason to depart from normal practice here.
2. The current text seems to imply doubt as to whether Jay Leno is the primary topic for Leno. Normally, the text is unambiguous, typically using "is" or "was" in an unqualified way.

As I indicated above, on reflection I accept my attempt at improvement was not successful. May I suggest the alternate wording:

Leno is the comedian and talk show host Jay Leno

which seems to me to be as natural as the current wording. Thanks, --MegaSloth (talk) 04:20, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

The next two examples in MOS:DAB#Linking to a primary topic give a counter-example to the "normal" guidance using Mozart that is very much analogous to the Leno situation. I see Born2cycle has already edited the page and I'm OK with that rewording. But for the record, I don't think saying that "X commonly refers to Y" where X is a redirect to Y implies any doubt that Y is the primary topic status of X. older ≠ wiser 17:15, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm also much happier with Born2cycle's edit. Thanks Born2cycle. You're quite right about the Mozart example; I'll bear it in mind for the future (no point in dragging out a discussion here and now since it's all fairly minor and everyone's happy). --MegaSloth (talk) 21:56, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi there Bkonrad,

Judge Maning is my ancestor and I am doing a little research on his Irish links. The article mentions he came from a place called Johnville in County Dublin. I am not sure whether this was your writing or another person's edit but I hope you can help.

I cannot find any place in County Dublin called Johnville and even contacted the Ordnance Survey Ireland in Dublin - who agree they have never heard of it. They searched their databases and in particular the Census of Ireland 1851 which lists all the townlands in Ireland and could find no record of 'Johnville' in Dublin, or any county in Ireland. There are several 'Johnstown' listed for Dublin though.

Can you help clarify where Johnville is, whether it had/has another name today, the source of this piece of information?

Many thanks, Robyn Rkamira (talk) 21:05, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Greetings. It probably was my edit. But it was from many years ago though and before the current citation requirements for articles were in place, so I don't know for sure where the tidbit came from. I suspect that it may have come from the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica [2], pg 581-82 in the image and pg 598-99 in the electronic reader.

BTW, my wife's mother is from NZ and we think she was also a descendant of Maning. She is just getting started with looking into the genealogy, so there might be some interest in comparing notes. You can send me e-mail offline if you'd like. older ≠ wiser 22:33, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi there. From your edit with the edit summary "no reason to avoid legitimate redirects", I guess I still don't really understand MOS:DAB. The guideline says "piping or redirects should not be used in disambiguation pages." The only exceptions I can fathom are are "to link to a specific section" and "an alternative term which is already in the article's lead section", both of which do not apply. What am I missing? Please don't take this as an attack but as an attempt to understand the policy better. Best regards. --Muhandes (talk) 15:57, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

No problem. MOSDAB is in parts somewhat counterintuitive. While it does say "piping or redirects should not be used in disambiguation pages", that is prefaced by the phrase "Subject to certain exceptions as listed below". One of the exceptions is Linking to a redirect can also be helpful when the redirect contains the disambiguated term and could serve as an alternative name for the target article, meaning an alternative term which is already in the article's lead section. Scarborough is an existing place in New York and just as it is perfectly acceptable, or even preferred to link to a redirect in articles, it is also appropriate on disambiguation pages where the target is a legitimate topic in its own right. While Scarborough is partially within Briarcliff Manor, it is not synonymous with it and could, at least potentially, have a stand-alone article at some point. Persons fixing ambiguous links to Scarborough, should link to Scarborough, New York rather than Briarcliff Manor, New York. older ≠ wiser 16:40, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry in advance for the lengthy discussion, feel free to say you are too busy for some editor's musings.

Your answer actually got me even more baffled. The text you quoted clearly states could serve as an alternative name for the target article, and clearly Scarborough, New York cannot serve as an alternative name for the target article Briarcliff Manor, New York so this entire rule does not apply. Leaving the technicalities aside, my understanding of the "no redirect or pipe rule" stems from the fact that dab pages are not articles, they are simply aids in searching, used when a reader uses a search term that can apply to multiple articles. We therefore don't want to hide the actual target of the link, as we want the reader to remains in control of the choice of article. If the reader is going to be sent to Briarcliff Manor, New York, that's what the link should show. Maybe seeing this, the reader would prefer Scarborough (Metro-North station) or Scarborough Country Day School, New York. By hiding the actual article we are "cheating" the reader. By the way, I totally agree people fixing links to Scarborough might want to link to Scarborough, New York. However, this has nothing to do with what the page itself should say - the page is for readers, while this is something relating to editors. Am I making any sense? --Muhandes (talk) 19:21, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

There is no "hiding" of the actual link. The entry, using the redirect, clearly indicates the name "Briarcliff Manor". The actual redirect for Scarborough, New York, should be a redirect to the relevant section within the Briarcliff Manor article. I've fixed that. In this case, the exception A redirect should be used to link to a specific section of an article if the title of that section is more or less synonymous with the disambiguated topic. This indicates a higher possibility that the topic may eventually have its own article is more on spot. older ≠ wiser 19:37, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

That almost works for me - except the title of that section is more or less synonymous with the disambiguated topic, where the title of the section was "Other Significant Areas" and wasn't synonymous with "Scarborough". I went ahead and fixed that, so now I can go back to work with my soul pacified. Thanks for taking the time, best regards, and happy editing. --Muhandes (talk) 19:56, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I did notice that, but the MOSDAB guidelines are not binding laws and don't cover every possible scenario, so I am content with getting readers to where the information is, even if some rules might be bent in the process. older ≠ wiser 20:13, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree - this wasn't a mandatory step. I did it since it seemed reasonable to create the sections anyway, as there was more than one short sentence for each of the areas, otherwise I would have left it as it is. Cheers. --Muhandes (talk) 20:48, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Oops! Sorry, I missed that one! Moonraker12 (talk) 14:39, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi why was a reference to 'crook' being Australian and NZ for being sick not acceptable? Ozdaren (talk) 05:55, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

See WP:DAB and WP:MOSDAB. Disambiguation pages are primarily navigational aids to help readers find articles. As such, the list mostly consists of links to articles with ambiguous titles. In some cases, there might not be a stand-alone article, but if the subject has significant content in another article, the entry may link to that article. The slang dictionary definition for crook doesn't meet any of the criteria. Readers looking for a slang definition can check Wiktionary. older ≠ wiser 12:53, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Exactly.navigational aids npovWikidgood (talk) 07:02, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Dear Sir, You have vandalized the article RAPINI.I wander if you have an excuse, for showing such incompetence and arrogance!. I have been working for a week with the help of more sensible editors such as Vrenator.I was considering accepting their offer to become a regular collaborator to Wikipedia, but now I am disgusted. I am not familiar with your red-tape, so if if you have anything to say, please anwer here.93.43.209.146 (talk) 08:16, 4 February 2011 (UTC) Professor Albert C.93.43.209.146 (talk) 08:16, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I have left this user a message on my talkpage and pointed out he is wrong to attack editors like yourself. Vrenator (talk) 10:26, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Dear Mr Bkonrad,Since Ms Vrenator came to your rescue, I left a note with her, please read it.It is I, who DEMAND some apology from you. I hope you reply personally.Thank you.93.43.208.140 (talk) 12:40, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

What sort of apology do you expect? That I'm sorry you are uninformed about how to edit Wikipedia and also arrogant as well? Please try heeding the advice that Vrenator gave you. There are resources available to assist new editors who are at least able to recognize that they might need some assistance. older ≠ wiser 12:46, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Dear Bkonrad, [older but not wiser],.Probably I was wrong, hoping that, for once, you would be reasonable and not arrogant.It is childish to respond the way you did (...Me arrogant?, listen who's talking...you are the arrogant...).I hope at least that, if you did not read the article, you read my note.Now, if you didn't, I ask you again, humbly,

 WHAT RIGHT have you to destroy the contents if you don't like the format?
 Why didn't you give me a warning, as Vrenator did, telling me WHERE I went wrong?
 What is the procedure that I have violated in my incompetence?.

You see, sonny boy, I fully ADMIT my incompetence, in the fields where I am an incompetent.And I will ADMIT my ARROGANCE too, if you for once, would be so kind and reasonable to give me some concrete semblance of an argument.I DO not allow any young cheeky stripling Jack-in-the-office to liquidate Me as arrogant.Is that clear? P.S. I haven't verbally attacked you, YET. With my best regards. A.C.93.43.208.140 (talk) 13:11, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Your arrogance is self-evident in the language you use. If you don't see that, you need to take several deep breaths and perhaps ask a third-party for an objective opinion. I'm sorry if I mistook your work for vandalism, but in comparing the article as it was on January 3 [3] with how is was on February 3 [4] (differences between the two) it seemed that the earlier version was superior and that the intervening edits introduced both formatting errors as well as shifted the position of many of the existing references such that the references appeared to be supporting statements quite different from those of the persons who originally added the references. Like Vrenator, I suggest you approach making your changes in a more measured manner. Anonymous IPs making many changes to an article without making any sort of edit summary are easily mistaken for vandals. Especially when the changes result in broken formatting and shifted references. Cheers. older ≠ wiser 13:29, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I wish you realize the beauty and the power of the box.93.43.208.140 (talk) 13:16, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by this. older ≠ wiser 13:29, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Dear Bkonrad [sadder but wiser]!. I suppose you are a native speaker of English, I am not. But I'll teach you an English lesson. You where arrogant because you ARROGATED the right to destroy a scholarly article, that few people in the whole planet might have written, and ARROGATED the right to judge, being incompetent. Then you were arrogant , in the common sense of the word, because you defended your mistake abusing of your office. Another Linguistis lesson is that language cannot be arrogant.I cannot be arrogant because of the language I use.Probably tou referred to the TONE of my notes, which vibrated with outrage!. I will not trouble you further with technical argument you wouldn't understand. As as I didn't attack you in the first place, I don't want to humiliate you. It was YOU ,that attacked ,unjustly and OVERBEARINGLY, my article. I was lashing because , during this week of fatigue, I met many other, incompetent but decent and less violent, editors, so I could be SURE that your behaviour is below the standard. I warn you not to restore my article, because you deserve the load of rubbish you have brought back. Nothing personal! I do hope now you'll be wiser.93.43.203.58 (talk) 14:08, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Arrogance: The act or habit of arrogating, or making undue claims in an overbearing manner. Your edits resulted in an inferior article. That you still believe otherwise is an indication of your arrogance. Your overbearing manner is further evidence of your arrogance. older ≠ wiser 14:30, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

That's a fair suggestion, and I've started on it. I can't finish it now, but it (editing these links) has confirmed for me the absurdity of the earlier redirect; a significant number of the pages that are redirecting to History of Jakarta in fact are not correctly aimed there, demonstrating, as I feel, that the presumption of the redirect (which you have restored) is way off the mark. Frankly, I think that it makes sense for the redirect to be changed immediately back the way I had it, so that the many articles incorrectly heading to Javanese history (and probably confusing the hell out of the readers getting there) would instead at least get to a dab page. But I respect your motives, and shall endeavour to complete the job you've suggested and I've started. I just can't now, as I have to sign off. But I'll get it done soon. (And, now that I recognize that this cannot be a one-size-fits-all fix, I need to review what I've already done--it may well be it can be done better than I've done thus far.) HuskyHuskie (talk) 05:43, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

I meant no disrespect in reverting your change to the redirect. I made a very quick scan of the linked articles before I reverted and it appeared the majority were related to Jakarta. A minority seemed to be intended for the Roman sense and for the place in New York. I just did another slightly more in depth check and found the same. While I'm not sure that there is a primary topic, if it is the case that the past name of Jakarta is the primary topic, people looking for another topic are served by the redirect notice that you also removed and I just now restored (at least temporarily). For the record, the previous discussion leading to Batavia redirecting to history of Jakarta, see Talk:Batavia (region). Considering that there was some minimal discussion in the past it may make sense to have a wider discussion on whether there is a primary topic for Batavia by proposing to move Batavia (disambiguation) to Batavia. older ≠ wiser 13:28, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I came across as offended; as I said, yours was a fair suggestion, and I meant that. What I see is that, indeed, a majority of the links go to Jakarta, but that is not the point. It is not, in my opinion, fair to assume that this is what most people are looking for. Yes, a lot of links have been created to go there, but those links were created by people who have an interest in Indonesian history. But someone interested in just Roman history--and there will be a lot of those, may be thinking about this. Someone interested in American history may be looking for this (or even this). And it's not just about those with an interest in history. Someone interested in particle physics is quite possibly looking for this. Heck, look at this user page. Do you think she means Jakarta?

Now I know that you're an intelligent editor, so you didn't need all those examples. But consider this: All those other examples are going to places that are currently named Batavia, but the default link goes to a reference of a place that was temporarily called Batavia and has not been called that for over 70 years. 99.9% of the world's population was not even born when Jakarta was last called Batavia. Of course, this is something that should be discussed on the articles' talk pages, not here, right? But which talk pages? If I bring it up at History of Jakarta, the discussion will be dominated by people with an interest in that topic who clearly didn't even know that Batavia was the world's foremost location for post-WWII nuclear particle research. Heck, that debate you pointed me to was to decide to which of two former uses of the name it should direct to. I would suggest that there are thousands more people who, when they think of Batavia, think of one of the contemporary uses. That this never entered into the discussion leaves me pessimistic about the prospects of engaging the topic again. Looks like a case of boldness is called for. And while I would like to be able to do it in one fell swoop, just having started on the links shows me that this is not a good idea, as there are so many different directions these links mean to head to. HuskyHuskie (talk) 16:01, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

One other issue that I just thought of--and I may not know what I'm talking about here--but if the default went to Batavia (disambiguation), then when people just created Batavia, wouldn't there be people or bots who would go around and diambiguate that for them, over time? But with it going to History of Jakarta, said bots just ignore these erroneous links. HuskyHuskie (talk) 16:07, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Like I said. I suggest proposing to move Batavia (disambiguation) to Batavia with the discussion on Talk:Batavia (disambiguation) and leave notices of the discussion on Talk:History of Jakarta (and anywhere else might be interest). That most of the links are correct indicates it might be the primary topic. But the limited nature of the previous discussion suggests that a wider discussion might reach a different determination. older ≠ wiser 17:16, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

That most of the links are correct indicates it might be the primary topic. That is certainly one valid way of looking at it. But I don't think the purpose of redirects is to focus attention onto certain articles, it is to lead our readers where they are most likely intending to go. When that can't be done, a dab page is where we should redirect them. I decided to look at views, and I found the following views in January 2011 for the following Batavias:

• Batavian Republic had 8513 views (actually used December 2010 figures, since it got 17,500 views when it was listed on the Main Page in "On this day" for January 19, 2011).
• Batavia_(ship) had 7677 views.
• Batavia_(city),_New_York had 4073 views.
• History of Jakarta had 3132 views.
• Batavia, Illinois had 2731 views.
• Batavia_(town),_New_York had 386 views.
• Batavia, Suriname had 167 views.
• Batavia,_Iowa had 166 views.

Note that, even with over 300 pages containing redirects from Batavia to History of Jakarta, that it was still only #4 in views. My point is that it is a somewhat insular community of people who share an interest in Indonesia history who think the that natural thing is to link make the default link from Batavia go to History of Jakarta, or for that matter, anything related to that town (because there are also, I'm afraid, well over a hundred double directs (is that the right term?) where they pass through Batavia, Dutch East Indies, which is itself a redirect to History of Jakarta.) In other words, there are over 500 articles linking to History of Jakarta (including some that actually do not intend to link there), and it still lags far behind the leading article in views.

I see no reason to not go and disambiguate all links to Batavia to the actual articles intended. I will accept the argument that these articles referring to the colonial capital city should link to History of Jakarta and not Jakarta as intended by the discussants (and indeed, I have already reversed myself on those that I sent to Jakarta), but I see no reason to discuss anything further. If I am willing to disambiguate the pages properly, I am causing harm to no one nor to anyone's cause. It will take time; I will take my time. HuskyHuskie (talk) 18:46, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not disagreeing with you. But sometimes it is worth discussing in broader forum before expending a lot of effort that might be met with resistance once interested editors realize what you've done. Also, just a suggestion, but you might want to use Batavia, Dutch East Indies when disambiguating links to Batavia. Seems that would be less confusing to subsequent editors than a piped link such as Batavia ([[History of Jakarta|Batavia]]). Cheers. older ≠ wiser 20:02, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Linking to Batavia, Dutch East Indies would make a lot more sense to me, as well. I chose to go to [[History of Jakarta|Batavia]] because that's what Batavia redirects to. There is no article at Batavia, Dutch East Indies, it just redirects to History of Jakarta. And isn't the creation of double skip links like that discouraged? HuskyHuskie (talk) 20:10, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Not at all. See Don't fix redirects that aren't broken. You might be thinking of WP:Double redirects, which are a problem for readers. older ≠ wiser 20:42, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Interesting stuff. I didn't know that; I thought that the existence of Batavia, Dutch East Indies, which is only a redirect to History of Jakarta, was an actual problem that I was going to fix, albeit begrudgingly. Guess I'll do that instead. Thanks. HuskyHuskie (talk) 21:29, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Do you have a rationale for that reversion? Note that it was not a "copy and paste move" of nothing. Also, America is a continent with many other countries, and not just the country which includes the name of the continent in its own name. Please, don't revert it again, unless you discuss it somewhere (preferrably, here.) Diego Grez (talk) 22:26, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

You had earlier did a copy and paste move and I mistook this edit as a continuation. But even so, it is incorrect to redirect from a base name to the base name with "(disambiguation)" appended. Nearly all of the links to the page are meant for the U.S. sense, which is one indication of a Primary topic. If you believe there is not a primary topic for the term, then please propose moving Colonial America (disambiguation) to Colonial America. Continued discussion should not take place here on a user but on Talk:Colonial America (disambiguation). older ≠ wiser 04:19, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I did not do the copy and paste move! Please check the page history. If all of the links refer to the United States, then change them, but America is the whole continent. Will propose the move, later tomorrow (technically today). Diego Grez (talk) 05:13, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Ah yes. Sorry. It was lat when I was writing and trying to check the history. Links can be fixed depending on the outcome of the requested move. older ≠ wiser 13:32, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Bkonrad. You have new messages at PPdd's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

How is it possible to have 87,000 edits in only 7 years, like you have? PPdd (talk) 21:47, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Eh, there's lots with more edits, many in less time than I. older ≠ wiser 21:57, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Eh, eh, and I had thought that I was the one who needed to get a life! :) PPdd (talk) 22:01, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I posted where you said, although it says there is a backlog. Did I do move request right for Ridiculous, Ridiculous (album), and Ridiculous (general use)? PPdd (talk) 00:40, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

		The Disambiguator's Barnstar
		Thanks for all your hard work on disambiguation pages, Boleyn (talk) 20:26, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

There is a discussion starting up at Talk:Batavia (disambiguation), that may be of interest to you. The subject is technically a page move discussion, but the purpose of the discussion is to decide where Batavia should redirect. Until earlier today, Batavia redirected to History of Jakarta, but during this discussion, it is redirecting to Batavia (disambiguation). Your comments and suggestions are welcome.

Thanks for your help. HuskyHuskie (talk) 22:40, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

You are receiving this because you are one of the principal editors of one of the articles that is linked to Batavia (disambiguation). This notice is being posted to all of the top three editors of each of these articles (in terms of total edits), with the following exceptions:

This is an attempt to be a neutrally-phrased posting in keeping with the principles of WP:CANVASS. If you find anything in the wording or the manner posted to be a violation of that guideline, please notify me at my talk page.

You deleted my edit on "Caca". why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cakebread (talk • contribs) 02:32, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

you keep deleting my post but you do not explain why. Can you explain? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cakebread (talk • contribs) 03:22, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Orion - 15 February 2011 Regarding Orion, why did you delete my addition of our company, MAISON ORION, to the list? Genoahugo (talk) 03:28, 16 February 2011 (UTC)genoahugo

Thanks for clearing that up - as the last major tidier-up of the dab page I thought it might seem like WP:OWN if I just leapt in and tried to sort it out this time. PamD (talk) 18:04, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I would like to place who is currently in place at Leoni, and with your resistance, I challenge you to write about the supervisor. All cities usually have this information. So —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.242.150.98 (talk) 19:55, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Provide reliable sources to support the information and present the information in an unbiased manner. older ≠ wiser 21:01, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I did a thing where you make the name of the internal link different from the actual page, so the link leads (or lead) to the same page as Walter E. Kurtz. If it didn't exist, it wouldn't have been blue in the first place, silly. :p TheArchaeologist 20:34, 23 February 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hpelgrift (talk • contribs)

So I'm looking at some of your reverts to me (such as [5] and [6]), and I'm a bit confused, because we just went through a whole thing to move Batavia (disambiguation) to Batavia. But if I understand your edits correctly, what you are saying is that, even if the dab page doesn't include "(disambiguation)" in the name, that I should include it in the hatnote? Is that what this is about? HuskyHuskie (talk) 16:23, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes. Basically, most links to disambiguation pages (seen via What links here) are mistaken links. It helps maintenance to be able to quickly distinguish intentional links (such as in hatnotes) from errant links. See WP:INTDABLINK for more info. older ≠ wiser 16:38, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Ahh, now I get it. Yes, I actually "corrected" those when I went to "What links here" and was trying to eliminate any direct links to Batavia. But now I see why I should let those be.

Speaking of my efforts earlier today, I was stymied by one situation. I want to correct the links to Batavia in List of sovereign states in 1944 and other such articles, but am unable to, apparently because the links are tied in to some type of template. Would you have any idea how to fix those so that they could link to either History of Jakarta, Jakarta, or Batavia, Dutch East Indies? HuskyHuskie (talk) 16:45, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Ah, yes, it appears to be a single-purpose template {{capital}}. I'm not sure what the point of the template is, as it appears to only apply some formatting. See this for an edit to fix it. older ≠ wiser 19:43, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for taking care of that! HuskyHuskie (talk) 20:08, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

You recently participated in this discussion. There is now a follow-up discussion here. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:42, 28 February 2011 (UTC)