User talk:Bkonrad/Archive 103

Archive 100

Archive 101

Archive 102

Archive 103

Archive 104

Archive 105

→

Archive 110

Talk:Apple (disambiguation) revert and revert of revert

Just curious how/why you did this. Thanks for the correction. --В²C ☎ 02:17, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Clumsy tablet use. Pen sometimes "sticks" on the rollback link before I even realize it. older ≠ wiser 02:27, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

The great one

Why the deletion of all information? It's kind of strange that would be deleted as I start doing research underneath theory of Nostradamus — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.247.225.5 (talk) 03:40, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Never Gonna Give You Up (disambiguation)

Hi, You reverted my addition of the Royals song of the same name. Why should that item be excised when the Isaac Hayes, Black Keys and Patrice Rushen ones are included? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Merrick102 (talk • contribs) 20:55, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

@Merrick102:, there is at present no article supporting the usage. The song is not mentioned in the article for The Royals (band). older ≠ wiser 21:13, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Primacy, and rest of the world

Perth, australia - is incorrect - there is more than one in Australia, why the ease of reverting? rest of the world? quite a few editors came to some grief over the primacy issue against the scottish perth, why not discuss first, or is there a problem?

JarrahTree 00:23, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

ahh, I see - it is an obvious sign you havent forgot when one finds: curprev 03:20, 16 December 2015‎ Bkonrad talk contribs‎ 55 bytes −18‎ Restore target to what most of the world would expect to find at this

the point is it is inaccurate - and I fail to see where what most of the world would expect has anything to do with protocols of place names in Australia... JarrahTree 00:28, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, but when the primary topic for Perth is the city in Western Australia, it is absolutely bonkers to have Perth, Australia as a disambiguation page. 02:00, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Fair enough - thanks for the reply - I fundamentally disagree with the primacy crap that was overtaking the wikipedia space about 6 years ago or so - and it will in its own way find a morass and chaos once the wikidata/short description/structured data flood sort of makes some primacy ideas totally redundant (imho - specially a lot of the category rubbish). Hey - have a good one, our surviving local active admin (sic) has fixed the talk page of the redirect there. JarrahTree 02:29, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Question re. Marion Brown edit

Hi, I was just curious as to why you changed the title of my recently-created Marion Brown / Why Not Page. The Marion Brown discogs entry (https://www.discogs.com/Marion-Brown-Quartet-Why-Not/release/576933), the title on the back cover of the album (https://www.discogs.com/Marion-Brown-Quartet-Why-Not/release/576933/image/SW1hZ2U6Mzk2NDU3NzU=), and the entry in the MB discography (http://discog.piezoelektric.org/marionbrown/r/whynot.html) all display the title without a question mark. I'm not challenging you, I'm just trying to understand your criteria for the change. Thanks for your time. Regards, Helen Puffer Thwait (talk) 01:19, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Black Diamonds (Band)

Hello Bkonrad

Sorry for disturbing you. A few months ago I added the english translation for the german page: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Diamonds

The page was deleted for reasons G4 and G11, which you can see here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&logid=112619889

Now the new album 'No-Tell Hotel' entered the charts in Switzerland at #3 last week, which should not make the content irrelevant anymore? And since there are a lot of followers in non-german speaking countries (Italy, UK, France, Spain) it was the idea to have information on the group available in english language. Do you see a chance to bring the page back? Maybe if the text is completely rewritten?

Best regards Starchild11 (talk) 15:04, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Walter Palmer

I drafted a lengthy article on Walter Palmer a year ago and never got around to posting it. I redlinked his name to post that article. Have you a suggestion as to what you feel is the best way to proceed? Activist (talk) 10:24, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Could try WP:articles for creation.

That doesn't solve the problem with putting him on the disambiguation page without being sent to the Killing of Cecil article. His life didn't begin and end with Cecil. Activist (talk) 10:49, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Not sure why that's a problem. At present there is only the one article with any significant coverage of the dentist. It appears to be classic case of WP:ONEEVENT, unless his subsequent killing of an endangered species of Mongolian ram is also considered. older ≠ wiser 11:55, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

He has a long history of such behavior. Cecil was simply the most notorious, the one that earned him worldwide opprobrium. He also didn't do it just by himself, much of the time. Activist (talk) 22:30, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 March 2021

• News and notes: A future with a for-profit subsidiary?

• Gallery: Wiki Loves Monuments

• In the media: Wikimedia LLC and disinformation in Japan

• News from the WMF: Project Rewrite: Tell the missing stories of women on Wikipedia and beyond

• Recent research: 10%-30% of Wikipedia’s contributors have subject-matter expertise

• From the archives: Google isn't responsible for Wikipedia's mistakes

• Essay: Wikipedia:The Free Encyclopedia

• Obituary: Yoninah

• From the editor: What else can we say?

• Arbitration report: Open letter to the Board of Trustees

• Traffic report: Wanda, Meghan, Liz, Phil and Zack

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:43, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Location where this person was last seen

Do you know where this person Jacques Vergès disappeared from and was last seen before turning up many years later? I need this information so I can add a category to his article. Davidgoodheart (talk) 06:35, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

I knew nothing at all about this person until your message. I wouldn't know where to begin. older ≠ wiser 00:23, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Reverted redirect of docker to stevedore

Hi, reverted your redirect of docker to stevedore; please see and discuss on Talk:Docker; ’preciate it!  —PowerPCG5 (talk) 03:00, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

PowerPCG5 This move has been discussed a number of times and has not gained consensus. Suggest you look at talk pages before being bold and certainly before repeating a reverted edit. And in any case, you should avoid WP:Cut and paste moves. 03:06, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for responding; which talk page are you referring to for discussing/reopening the proposal for the move? The ones I’ve seen are from years ago when Docker the software was less prevalent than it is today; today any Web search for “Docker” only lists results for the software and not for stevedore. Also thanks for the link to WP:Cut and paste moves—was not aware of that page.  —PowerPCG5 (talk) 03:11, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Proposed redirect of Docker to Docker (software)

Hi,
As you suggested I read through the talk pages for Docker and Docker (disambiguation) and would like to invite you to weigh in on the discussion on the proposal to move “docker (disambiguation)” to “docker.” In particular, in your opinion, do you feel it would be better to move docker (disambiguation) to docker, or would it be better to just change the redirect for docker from its current stevedore to Docker (software)? In any case a Google search for “Docker” exclusively returns results for the software on the first several pages with no results for “stevedore,” so clearly the current situation of “docker” redirecting to “stevedore” makes no sense and is the worst of the three options. Your thoughts? And thanks again for helping me out with your suggestions and pointing me to the relevant resources!  —PowerPCG5 (talk) 05:05, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks

Your reverts (with explanations) on my first two attempts to add an entry on the Ion disambiguation page led me to better understand how disambiguation pages work, particularly this rule: "a linked Wikipedia article must support the claimed usage". Actually, now I look at MOS:DAB, this is spelt out in the first two paragraphs. Oska (talk) 00:58, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Bear Creek Township in Sauk County, Wisconsin

Hello,

I wanted to add Bear Creek Township in Sauk County, Wisconsin to the Bear Creek Township page. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bear_Creek_Township&diff=0&oldid=1017831853 You removed it saying it is not a township. But it is a township. However created the original page didn't create it as a township page for some reason. There is no "town" called Bear Creek in Bear Creek Township, Sauk Co., WI. The "town" name refers to township in this case.

How can I change this page to reflect a township? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bear_Creek,_Sauk_County,_Wisconsin

Thanks!44mm16cm (talk) 17:58, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Typically most towns in Wisconsin are not usually referenced as townships. They may occasionally be called as townships and are in many respects equivalent to civil townships in some other states. But we'd need solid references showing that it is commonly known as Bear Creek Township. I noticed you've been changing town to township for some other Wisconsin towns. This seems a bit questionable when the preponderance of reliable source refer to them as towns. And rather than linking to civil township it would be more helpful to link the term town to Town (Wisconsin) (which at present is redirect to section of an article that describes the usage in Wisconsin. older ≠ wiser 21:17, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Town, Township

Several maps in Wisconsin use the term "township"

I don't know where my talk page is, so I have to reply here. 44mm16cm (talk) 20:08, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

References

"TWD" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect TWD. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 April 20#TWD until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. UserTwoSix (talk) 01:51, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

April 2021

Your recent editing history at Bharat (disambiguation) shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

---

So, you may be surprised that you, an admin, should receive this sort of nasty template message that's normally only reserved for newbies. Well, you may know the message but I've never thought that you actually know know it. Why not give it a read? Obviously, my own behaviour hasn't been that great either – otherwise you wouldn't have had the chance to revert so many times. Still, I think that's something worth pausing to think about: if you had done one more revert, then under any normal circumstances you should have expected to see yourself dragged to AIV and blocked for a day. – Uanfala (talk) 00:36, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

And the warning is terribly ironic coming from you as it there are two sides in reversion and you fully committed to reverting as much as I. older ≠ wiser 01:12, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

As I admitted already, my own behaviour is not exemplary either. But you're one step ahead. If we went for one more round, then I'd be at 3R and you'd be over the line, so if we got reported at AIV, I'd get away with a warning and you'd get a block (WP:4RR). Or you would if you weren't an admin, I don't know how that works given the supermario effect. But the fact that you are an admin makes this edit warring look even worse. You're aware that this is not the first time you've done that. I hope you'll appreciate how bad that looks coming from an admin. – Uanfala (talk) 01:29, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Or maybe you might have stopped to ask yourself, "Why am I being reverted? Could there be a guideline I'm ignoring?" older ≠ wiser 02:19, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

I do believe a strictly guidelines-driven approach here may result in tunnel vision that ignores reader needs. But that's not the point. The point is that editors don't get blocked over interpretations of style guidelines, they get blocked over crossing the three-revert rule. This is a bright line – no matter how right you believe yourself to be, you can't make more than three reverts in 24 hours. – Uanfala (talk) 12:23, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

And editors who knowingly go right up to the line are often rebuked if not blocked as well. older ≠ wiser 14:10, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Collision (computer science)

Hi! Thanks for your edit. I wouldn't object if you achieved to delete the page Collision (computer science). I had tried that myself, but failed, see User_talk:Pburka#Collision_(computer_science). - Jochen Burghardt (talk) 17:01, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Sorry

In a recent re-reversion, I implicitly accused you of prefering "questionable speciation" at Black Jack. On reflection, you didn't change "plants" back to "species", just the rest. Egg on my face, thanks for holding back a bit! InedibleHulk (talk) 02:46, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

I see you're still adamant about "correct form for intentional links to disambiguation". If that's the way it has to be, fine. But could you explain where you got that idea, just for future reference? InedibleHulk (talk) 03:32, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

(talk page watcher)@InedibleHulk: See WP:INTDABLINK. PamD 04:58, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the lead, Pam, WP:HOWTODAB clinched it for me! InedibleHulk (talk) 05:05, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Kind information

The topics - Salem Metropolitan Area is required for article about Salem city in India . If it is redirected article search by lakhs of people in India may be disappointed . Please don't redirect the page to any other page. தனீஷ் (talk) 11:49, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

தனீஷ் Please select an unambiguous title for the new article. older ≠ wiser 12:19, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

The title for the article I have asked for you is not suitable with any other title and it is easy way to reach by people's தனீஷ் (talk) 12:26, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

No, the title Salem Metropolitan Area is ambiguous with both entries at Salem metropolitan area. older ≠ wiser 12:37, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 April 2021

• From the editor: A change is gonna come

• Disinformation report: Paid editing by a former head of state's business enterprise

• In the media: Fernando, governance, and rugby

• Opinion: The (Universal) Code of Conduct

• Op-Ed: A Little Fun Goes A Long Way

• Changing the world: The reach of protest images on Wikipedia

• Recent research: Quality of aquatic and anatomical articles

• Traffic report: The verdict is guilty, guilty, guilty

• News from Wiki Education: Encouraging professional physicists to engage in outreach on Wikipedia

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:31, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 April 2021

• From the editor: A change is gonna come

• Disinformation report: Paid editing by a former head of state's business enterprise

• In the media: Fernando, governance, and rugby

• Opinion: The (Universal) Code of Conduct

• Op-Ed: A Little Fun Goes A Long Way

• Changing the world: The reach of protest images on Wikipedia

• Recent research: Quality of aquatic and anatomical articles

• Traffic report: The verdict is guilty, guilty, guilty

• News from Wiki Education: Encouraging professional physicists to engage in outreach on Wikipedia

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:28, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Piedra de Sol

I'll go with your greater experience on the attempted disambiguation of Piedra de Sol but would like to check with you on what might be the best next move. The fact remains that Piedra de Sol is a Spanish title of a poem probably better known by the title "Sunstone" given to its most familiar translation in English. I notice that the number of daily hits for the article very seldom rises above 20, which could be the result of the unfamilar title. I only found the article by looking at the entry for its author, Octavio Paz, and following it back from there...but that was because I have a basic knowledge of Spanish to start with. What I would like your advice on, therefore, is how the article can be acceptably retitled so as to gain it a wider readership and would welcome suggestions. Sweetpool50 (talk) 16:49, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

• (talk page watcher) I wonder whether a solution would be to move the article on the poem to Sunstone (poem) (or perhaps Sun Stone (poem)?), as that is the title by which it is best known in English? I can't find chapter and verse for naming rules for articles on poems, but in Wikipedia:Naming conventions (books) we have "If the book is best known by an English title, use that version of the title." and there is Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English). Both those redlinks above should, I suggest, be redirects to Piedra de Sol (there seem to be no other poems by either name), and perhaps one of them used in the Sunstone disambiguation page. PamD 17:10, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Lots of redirects needed - the Nobel speech uses "Sunstone" and I read in the "translations" section that it has been published in English as "Sun-Stone" and "Sun Stone" (with or without a "The "). PamD 17:13, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

The Quiroga book source is interesting as it refers to "Sunstone" but mentions other poems by the same poet by their original Spanish titles, suggesting that a move to Sunstone (poem) would be sensible. PamD 17:16, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Sweetpool50. PamD's advice is spot on. I've no basis to determine what the common name might be in this case. A requested move discussion would make consensus clear. Since it appears to be the only poem with the title "Sunstone" (or "Sun Stone"), a title such as Sunstone (poem) or Sun Stone (poem) would work. Personally, I'd have no problem with leaving it at current title with redirects from English versions, but don't really care too much one way or the other. older ≠ wiser 17:51, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you both for your advice. I'll begin with a move discussion, but incline personally to "Sunstone" as the better known title; besides, it will avoid the ambiguity of getting confused with the Aztec sun stone. Sweetpool50 (talk) 18:28, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

GSR disambiguation page: Global Sea Mineral Resources

I have just added a wikilink to DEME#Global Sea Mineral Resources (GSR). It is no longer a red link on a disambiguation page. Problem solved: it was just a question of time. Thank you for your understanding. Shinkolobwe (talk) 19:16, 30 April 2021 (UTC)