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.

Would appreciate your comments here after your recent participation in this discussion. --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:32, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for removing the text that I put improperly on Paragon which is a disambiguation page. But the issue is that where should it be put? There had been a split proposal for Paragon (diamond) (details discussed on its talk page). But, I do not know how to address the issue. Could you please intervene. Can you move the page history for Paragon (diamond) to The Paragon (diamond) (presently redirected to the former) and put the removed text on Paragon (diamond). Any other suggestion is also welcome. Diptanshu^Talk 05:18, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

In your reversion of my edits your comments read: "no, these are all partial title matches with very dubious ambiguity with the unmodified term digital." Could you explain what the WTF that means? It sounds a lot like WP:CREEP.

See Talk:Digital‎#Disambiguation page. But oh I see you've already replied there. I guess you just wanted to throw out some gratuitous abuse. older ≠ wiser 00:55, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Not gratuitous. I seriously have no idea how something can be "dubiously ambiguous". It's either ambiguous or it's clear. Are you saying that the meaning of "digital" is always clear? Are you saying that it can never be mistaken to mean any of those articles? Oicumayberight (talk) 01:35, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Like I said at Talk:Digital‎#Disambiguation page, the supposed evidence you gave really don't do much to support the usage that you claim. It is your claim that these are ambiguous that is dubious. older ≠ wiser 03:08, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

OK. So you don't need to support your claim that my evidence doesn't support my claim. You only need to say "no." The burden of proof is always on someone other than you, and you're the supreme judge. Got it! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oicumayberight (talk • contribs) 03:51, 9 July 2013‎ (UTC)

Not at all. The burden of proof, per WP:V, lies with those who want to include something claimed to be fact. older ≠ wiser 03:58, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Nobody included anything they claimed was fact. Ambiguity is never a matter of fact. It's almost as subjective as your claiming that my evidence of ambiguity is WP:JUSTNOTNOTABLE. Oicumayberight (talk) 08:04, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Not at all. Inclusion on a disambiguation page requires evidence that the usage is in fact ambiguous in the linked article. This ambiguous usage can be demonstrated and sourced. Terms are not included on a page merely because one editor has some intuition that a term might be ambiguous. older ≠ wiser 11:37, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Must be "ambiguous In the linked article?" "because one editor has some intuition that a term might be ambiguous?" What "rules" are you referring to? Are you making up rules as you go? Oicumayberight (talk) 15:59, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

I see you are being deliberately obtuse. Please do not post anything further on my talk page. older ≠ wiser 16:31, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I'm just trying to make the readers' lives better by adding the primary topic at the top of the page. For example, Pembroke is the original town and the most well known of its name. Please don't get rid of these primary topics! EverythingGeography (talk) 15:00, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

@EverythingGeography: By definition of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, there is no primary topic for Pembroke. Please familiarize yourself with WP:MOSDAB. older ≠ wiser 15:28, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I put flags next to the names of countries in disambiguation pages to make it easier for people to find the country, and make the page look more attractive. Please stop removing them! EverythingGeography (talk) 20:07, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

@EverythingGeography: Icons and other images in general should not be placed on disambiguation pages. See WP:MOSDAB#Images and templates. older ≠ wiser 01:17, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Bkonrad. I will leave it as it is. It is very tiring and tiresome playing who children and they invariably mess on you. Interesting that you can revert willy-nilly, but I must request a move.

As I don't have time for bureucratric games, I won't even bother making an issue of the fact that you have reverted me three times. Especially as you have [been blocked twice for edit-warring] and looking at your daily conflicts with myriad editors over your interpretation of the use of disambiguation tools, as can be gleaned from your user talk page.

It obviously makes sense to you that to get to "runner", I have to first be taken to "running", to then switch back to "runner", whereas running is already a direct entry and there are two points at which you can hop from "runner" to "running" should you be in the wrong place. Who would go looking for "runner" (athlete) athlete in the first place? Would you go looking for "boxer" or "boxing"? "high jumper" or "high jumping"? "tennis player" or "tennis"? The fact that "runner" according to your wishes should point to "running" already says it all - that "running" is the main term as far as the sport of running is concerned, therefore the majority of readers will go to "running" and not "runner". So we now sacrifice a base name disambiguation page for the sake of the minority of users who go to "runner" when they actually wanted to go to "running" ....

It is your perception that "runner" is a person - to me it is not not, therefore it is clear that to many others it will aso not be. As it says on the policy page to which you pointed me, it is very difficult to determine what the primary topic is. But perhaps it is the one that YOU want it to be.

Oh, before I forget: I am right busy redirecting screw to sexual intercourse, shot to shot glass, bird to woman, .... We can't have all these silly entries NOT pointing at the primary topic, can we now? Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 10:14, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Your use of sarcasm really doesn't do much to enhance your argument. JHunterJ has responded to your query at Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation#PRIMARYTOPIC, wikilawyering and plain good old good sense: To run or not to run - that's the redirect question. older ≠ wiser 12:05, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

You removed a link I put in to an existing page from the Butterworth page. Classical composers are often referred to using just their surnames. I was trying to find the entry for Butterworth, a composer whom I hadn't heard of previously. When I found that the composer was called George Butterworth, I put in the link, but you've taken it out again without explanation. Matt Stan (talk) 11:19, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

The explanation in the edit summary "see Butterworth (surname)". It is true for many people that they are known in some contexts by their surname. But in general, when a separate surname page exists, they are not included on the disambiguation page unless they are extremely well-known by the surname only (e.g. Washington, Jefferson, Hamilton, Roosevelt, Wilson, or Chamberlain. For more guidance, see MOS:DABNAME. older ≠ wiser 11:42, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Why did you revert this instead of putting some kind of "resolved" tag on the discussion? I see that the issue in question was resolved diff1diff2, and I admit I wasn't BOLD enough (I had seen the "Subjective CREEP" section but wasn't sure whether it was more about PTM or incomplete disambigs). What other wikiquette rule did I violate? --SoledadKabocha (talk) 21:34, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

@SoledadKabocha: Sorry for any confusion. It was a mistake. I must have accidentally clicked revert. I undid my mistake moments later. older ≠ wiser 21:42, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for sorting out the Mi'kmaq redirects and disambiguation. It is appreciated! -Uyvsdi (talk) 17:25, 20 July 2013 (UTC)Uyvsdi

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Vanguard (disambiguation) may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• the main battle tank used by the New Conglomerate in [[''PlanetSide]]'' and ''[PlanetSide 2]]''

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 12:05, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

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

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• * Balthazar, an angel in the TV series ''[[[[Characters of Supernatural#Balthazar|Supernatural]]'', played by Sebastian Roché

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 15:26, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi Bkonrad, I saw that you fully protected Boogie (disambiguation) several months ago. Do you think the protection could be removed or downgraded to semi-protection? I don't think further full protection is merited in this case. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:46, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Through this way, I inform there is a discussion about partially disambiguated titles, known as "PDABs". This subguide of WP:D was approved at VPP, in a discussion you participated. Note there was a discussion of PDAB at WT:D the last weeks (everything is explained in the RFC). You are welcome to give ideas about the future of this guideline at WT:D. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 05:35, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment at Talk:Social Security. I wasn't sure if you're watching that page so I thought I would give you a heads-up of a conversation I've started at WT:MOSDAB#Clarification regarding WP:DABREDIR in case you are interested. —sroc 💬 00:58, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

On 19 March you deleted material from the article World's End without comment on the talk page, or any explanation that made sense. I have reverted your change, pending an explanation. Would you mind explaining what the problem was, so it can be improved rather than simply removed? Peter Bell (talk) 07:13, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

I assume you're referring to this edit which has the edit summary the claimed usage is not supported by any of the linked articles. This explanation is still true. There is nothing in the linked articles that supports the claimed usage. That is a basic pre-requisite for disambiguation. Without verifiable information in an existing article, there is nothing to disambiguate within the context of Wikipedia. Your addition of a reference is not appropriate for disambiguation pages per WP:DABREF. MOS:DABMENTION explains that items mentioned within another article can be included, but goes on to explain If the title is not mentioned on the other article, there is no Wikipedia ambiguity with that topic, and that article should not be linked to in the disambiguation page. older ≠ wiser 11:37, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, I think I understand, but the claimed usage is not supported by any of the linked articles is admin jargon which means nothing to the reader. What claimed usage? What linked articles? There is nothing whatever on that page to say it is a disambiguation page, and that a different set of rules apply - it simply looks like a list page. Peter Bell (talk) 13:18, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

@Peter Bell:Sorry, but edit summaries don't allow a lot of space to elaborate. It seems clear enough if you stop to think about it. What claimed usage? Well, each entry represents a claim that the term means something. And well, linked articles should be self-explanatory to anyone. Most of the time, when you edit a disambiguation page, a special WP:EDITINTRO displays the message at Template:Disambig editintro which gives some suggestions for editing disambiguation pages. Unfortunately, the notice doesn't display in some circumstances (such as if you are editing an old version and perhaps some others I'm not aware of). older ≠ wiser 13:35, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to San Javier may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• ''San Javier''', (Spanish for Saint [[Francis Xavier]] an may also refer to the following places:

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 17:33, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Canso may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• * [[Canso, Nova Scotia]], a small fishing community in eastern Nova Scotia, Canada]

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 12:10, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

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

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• * Wax bloom, an efflorescence of wax or stearic acid affecting [[[[Oil pastel#Use|materials such as crayons, oil pastels, and wax-based coloured pencils]]

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 12:57, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the assistance with Einstein (disambiguation). After your edit, I checked out MOSDAB section on piping to see what I was doing wrong. Now, I know better for the future! :)

When I added Einstein (game), I couldn't figure out where to put it. I figured that, because it was an electronic toy, I'd put it under the technology section. But I could have easily seen it going under entertainment, too.

I'm about to make another edit to the page, one I think will help readers to more-quickly find what they are looking for. When I get done, check it out.

Thanks again,

Allixpeeke (talk) 01:29, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with your reversion. I'm going to start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation. Clarityfiend (talk) 13:00, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

If you revert my edits again, why are you reverting the ones where I provided the correct link to the articles for Return to Never Land? Isn't that supposed to be right or do you just want it to be redirect? 142.134.218.109 (talk) 21:10, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Please see WP:MOSDAB. I missed the one good edit concerning Return to Never Land. older ≠ wiser 21:39, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Please comment here. Thanks. georgianJORJADZE 18:35, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Permit me to say, with the utmost respect, that your strenuous efforts to assert WP:OWN and repel all other editors is impeding the proper work of the encyclopaedia. At the suggestion of an interested editor of long standing I have begun work on an English article on the play, and having to break off to deal with your persistent changes here is remarkably unhelpful. Best wishes. Tim riley (talk) 18:21, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Seconded by me. Please refrain from these ludicrous reverts in future and please digest the OWN guideline at your lesuire. -- Cassianto^Talk 19:26, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

@Cassianto and Tim riley: I'm sorry that both of you are confused about what WP:OWN is. And perhaps you might take the time to explain on Talk:Madame Sans-Gêne precisely what is so ludicrous about editing the page to conform with WP:MOSDAB guidelines. older ≠ wiser 20:23, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

No confusion our end. Constructive edits were made which were then reverted by you, with an inaccurate and ambiguous edit summary. Here's another guidline for you: WP:BRD, only you seem to be ignoring the "D" part of that at the moment. -- Cassianto^Talk 20:31, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

@Cassianto: And what part of editing the page to conform to the guidelines do you see as ludicrous? older ≠ wiser 20:33, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

I quote: "Include exactly one navigable (blue) link to efficiently guide readers to the most relevant article for that use of the ambiguous term. Do not wikilink any other words in the line." Your reversion goes against that. Also, see the hidden comment about not blue linking the first entry in the edit screen. ...oh, and I won't mention the apparent warring you seem to be doing to enforce your incorrect edit....oh blast! -- Cassianto^Talk 20:52, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

@Cassianto:You do understand what a "navigable (blue) link" is, don't you? (Hint: the link is not red.) Apart from that mistake on your part, what else do you see as ludicrous about editing the page to conform with the guidelines? (Hint: Please see see the comments I provided at Talk:Madame Sans-Gêne from the guidelines.) older ≠ wiser 21:06, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

I do thanks yes. I also know when to cease warring, which apparently you don't. I also know when to discuss after I have reverted a bold edit. Again, you appear to be lacking in this area too. That behaviour was ludicrous IMO. -- Cassianto^Talk 21:16, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

So, just to be clear, you think it is ludicrous to edit a page to conform to guidelines? Even after those edits and guidelines have been explained on the talk page which other reverters appear to be ignoring? older ≠ wiser 21:20, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

BKonrad, your changes do not comply with MOS. The blue link that is being called for by DABENTRY is the name of the article that is being listed on the disambig page, not just any blue link to something related to it, like its director or star. The wording of the guideline ("the most relevant article for that use of the ambiguous term") is to permit a link to an article that has a substantial discussion of the ambiguous term, where the term itself will never have an article, but in this case, there are none other than the redlinked terms themselves. I think some editors might say: Don't list those redlinked adaptations at all. But I have no objection to them being listed, only to the prohibited blue links. I'm afraid that you don't have much credibility in this minor rule discussion, as you clearly do not understand the more important issues of edit warring and BRD. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:27, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

@Ssilvers: Well, no. If you read WP:DABRL and WP:DABMENTION it is obvious that the blue link is not always the term being disambiguated. Further, if you had read those sections, you'd know that redlink-only entries are not acceptable on disambiguation pages. You really should be more certain about your understanding of guidelines before reverting edits. older ≠ wiser 23:31, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

I am puzzled why Bkondrad is posing as an authority on the Manual of Style having deliberately flouted it in the edits I reverted at 12.30 yesterday. Some of us are doing something about the redlinks - I have begun an article on the play. May I with the greatest possible respect suggest that instead of firing from the ramparts Bkondrad could do something useful by creating articles on the other red linked topics on the page? Tim riley (talk) 06:24, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

It great that you have started that article on the play. Sincerely. However, rather than blindly criticizing my supposed lack of knowledge of MOS for disambiguation pages, if you would have asked just about any other editor familiar with WP:MOSDAB and you would get a similar answer regarding redlink-only entries. older ≠ wiser 11:27, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

A good answer to read. Let us all AGF and move on with mutual respect. Best to all. Tim riley (talk) 18:23, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Bkonrad. I noticed you moved Impoundment (disambiguation) to Impoundment (the primary topic). You are correct that at this time, no article stands out as a primary topic. The usage guidelines at WP:DAB provide that either one of two things can be done:

• Make a disambiguation page (DAB) at the primary topic
• Redirect the primary topic to a DAB

Since the primary topic already redirected to the DAB, there was no need for the move.

I always prefer the latter (primary redirect to DAB), unless both did not exist yet. It makes hatnotes more obvious, and it also makes it easier to create content at the primary topic in the future, should a primary topic become clear, but that's just a personal opinion. Dovid (talk) 14:32, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

@Dovid: Well, it's a little confusing from the edit history now (since some of the edits have been deleted and can only be viewed by admins), but essentially, you performed a copy and paste move of the disambiguation page that had been at Impoundment (disambiguation) to Impoundment, which at the time was a redirect to Impoundment of appropriated funds. All I did was revert that copy and paste move and then properly moved the disambiguation page. older ≠ wiser 14:51, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

I had understood that DAB pages could include terms for which there was no wiki-article. If one is at all likely, it can be a redlink. If not, just an item on the list. I had thought refs might not belong on dab pages, but could think of no other way to meet the objection in your edit summary. Am I wrong about including uses of a term that are verifiable, but that might not be notable enough for a wikipedia article? David in DC (talk) 14:00, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

@David in DC: Yes, WP:DABMENTION describes entries that do not have their own article but are mentioned in another article. The basic rule of thumb is that the entry on the dab page must include a blue link to an article that includes the described use. Links to list articles can be OK, though some editors don't feel it is necessary to dab every possible obscure nook and cranny. If you have references, the recommended approach is to incorporate that reference into an existing article (or perhaps a new stub, if warranted) and then link to that article from the dab page. older ≠ wiser 15:19, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

You were right and I was wrong. I apologize. I've improved HGTV and re-added the show. I can't do the same for the archery bow, and won't unless it (or Bear Archery - as opposed to Mr. Bear himself) becomes stub-worthy. Same thing for the melee weapon. Thank you for your calm response and straightforward guidance in response to my overheated action. I was so aggravated by the recent process issues on the page that I showed poor judgement in content matters. David in DC (talk) 12:44, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

The name Panini is most commonly used for Pāṇini in academic sources so can you please move the current page Panini to Panini (disambiguation) to redirect Panini to Pāṇini again? Thanks. Khestwol (talk) 17:52, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

@Khestwol: This has been discussed in the past, so it is not an uncontroversial move. Directions for requesting moves that require discussion are at WP:RM/CM. older ≠ wiser 17:57, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Do you disagree with the move? Khestwol (talk) 18:02, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Actually, yes. The term "panini" is ambiguous in common use. older ≠ wiser 18:03, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

So it's fine like it's now? Khestwol (talk) 18:06, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes. older ≠ wiser 18:07, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I see that many DAB pages are redirect to just the name (e.g. Brownsville (disambiguation) redirects to just Brownsville). If you look at my recent edits carefully, my intention was to modify the underlying link without changing the link title itself so that it will go directly to the page itself. --Moreau36--Discuss 18:43, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

@Moreau36: No, if you read WP:INTDABLINK it is the link itself not the displayed text that should include "(disambiguation)" -- regardless of whether that is a redirect. older ≠ wiser 20:32, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I see your point now. Thanks for the heads up. --Moreau36--Discuss 22:51, 23 August 2013 (UTC)