User talk:Bkonrad/Archive 29
 | 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. |
| Archive 25 | ← | Archive 27 | Archive 28 | Archive 29 | Archive 30 | Archive 31 | → | Archive 35 |
Brian Eno: Ambient 1 Music for Airports release date
The release date of March 1978 is clearly contradicted by the September 1978 date on Eno's liner notes: http://music.hyperreal.org/artists/brian_eno/MFA-txt.html While the copyright date on the album is 1978, copyright is often earlier than actual release.
I have multiple sources for 1979 being the release date. The most important is M.C. Strong: The Great Rock Discography, which says March 1979. This is the only date (not counting Wikipedia itself) that specifies a month. Robert Christgau: Christgau's Record Guide: Rock Albums of the '70s, Ira Robbins, ed.: The New Trouser Press Record Guide, and Gary Graff & Daniel Durchholz, ed.: MusicHound Rock: The Essential Album all list 1979. Sources listing 1978 are probably just using the copyright date. Steveholtje (talk) 17:49, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
- All Music Guide to Classical Music by Chris Woodstra, Gerald Brennan, Allen Schrott pg 421 confirms that it was recorded in 1978 and released the following year. However, when the album is cited in scholarly works and other publications, the date is typically given as 1978. In such usage, the copyright date is more relevant than the release date. So the question is how best to present this in the article. I think rather than a single parenthetical year in the lead, there needs to be a similar statement. Something like
- Ambient 1: Music for Airports is an ambient music album by Brian Eno recorded in 1978 and released the following year.
- older ≠ wiser 18:15, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
That would work well. Or since the right-side box already has separate lines for "Released" and "Recorded" it's easily made clear, and as long as that's in there then "(1978)" in the body of the article is fine. Thanks! Steveholtje (talk) 21:16, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
- That's fine with me also. older ≠ wiser 21:34, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
My mistake
Hey, thanks for catching my goof on WP:RM. Shows what happens when you edit on not enough sleep, eh? Cheers!--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 03:36, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
- No problem. I'm often embarrassed by my careless edits. older ≠ wiser 03:39, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
Bloomfield Hills
That's better because I live in Bloomfield Hills and there is no way in hell it takes me ten minutes to get to Detroit. It takes about thirty minutes just to get to Comerica Park, with normal traffic.
By the way do you also live in Bloomfiled Hills? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bloomfiled Hills (talk • contribs) 21:10, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
Dear Older&Wiser, we seem to be having daily (if not more frequently) vitriolic assaults on this page. It is an ongoing problem. Any wise counsel would be appreciated. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 22:40, 13 November 2008 (UTC) Stan
- <delurk> I've watchlisted it. Who knew a small town in the middle of a forest would be such a battleground.<relurk> spryde | talk 13:03, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
- On second though, most of the issues come from the Custom Software IP range. A short softblock of that range for a week or two should deter them. If it doesn't, we may be able to contact them and let them know what is going on. I would also suggest a longer term (~June 09) softblock on 65.111.197.162 if the vandalism persists. My two cents. spryde | talk 13:10, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
- BK: Pardon my ignorance, but I don't know how to do that or where to go. apparently, you've taken care of it for now. We'll see how it goes. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 14:42, 14 November 2008 (UTC) Stan
- On second though, most of the issues come from the Custom Software IP range. A short softblock of that range for a week or two should deter them. If it doesn't, we may be able to contact them and let them know what is going on. I would also suggest a longer term (~June 09) softblock on 65.111.197.162 if the vandalism persists. My two cents. spryde | talk 13:10, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
Charter townships
I've been going through Michigan counties, ensuring that the introductions for townships and municipalities (and CDPs, when I can find them) link to 2000 census. Something occurred to me that I've not thought of since I was placing county templates: do you know why some charter townships are named "_____ Charter Township, Michigan" and why others are simply named "_____ Township, Michigan"? Nyttend (talk) 15:35, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
- Not definitively. I suspect that Rambot created the articles using whatever name was in the Census Bureau data at the time. The descriptions for many charter townships was updated by the Census Bureau in 2005 (see http://www.census.gov/popest/geographic/boundary_changes/ for the list of changes). Many of these have since been moved (for example Allendale Township, Michigan). I'm not sure if they have all been moved though. And it may well be that the Census Bureau listing is not up-to-date with the status of every charter township, a townships can change status either way with relatively little fanfare. Also, even though a township may be a charter township, they may choose not to include the term in their name. older ≠ wiser 16:34, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
Somewhat on this note
As you may have seen, in most Michigan counties with both charter and general law townships, the county templates have long listed them as "Charter township(s)" and "Civil townships". Because there were only nine that listed the non-charter as "General law townships", plus one that had them simply as "Townships", I've changed all of them to "Civil townships" for standardisation purposes; consequently, all county templates currently list either "Townships" (if all townships are non-charter) or "Charter townships" and "Civil townships". Obviously the ideal situation isn't to have non-charter listed as "general law" for some counties and as "civil" in others; but what do you think the best is? Is it better to list all non-charter townships as "civil" or as "general law" in counties with some charter townships? If you think that "general law" is better (which seems more reasonable to me), I'd be happy to help redo the templates. Nyttend (talk) 16:37, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
- Well, neither term is exactly common. I mean a township is a township unless it is a charter township. If a township is not a charter township (and in many cases, even if it is a charter township), the township is usually referred to as simply "township", without any qualification. In contexts where the distinction between the two types is significant, the more common term is probably "general law township" since that term is in Michigan Compiled Laws, for example, [1] or [2]. older ≠ wiser 03:42, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
- What I'm meaning is "civil townships" in counties such as {{Chippewa County, Michigan}}. I'm not asking about changing "townships" in counties such as {{Alger County, Michigan}}. I think either you misunderstood me or I misunderstood you: what do you think of this? Nyttend (talk) 12:40, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
- I guess I wasn't clear. I was more or less agreeing with you. While neither "civil" nor "general law" is common, of the two, general law would probably be more in accord with legalistic terminology. older ≠ wiser 12:47, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
- What I'm meaning is "civil townships" in counties such as {{Chippewa County, Michigan}}. I'm not asking about changing "townships" in counties such as {{Alger County, Michigan}}. I think either you misunderstood me or I misunderstood you: what do you think of this? Nyttend (talk) 12:40, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Chambers (surname), and it appears to be very similar to another wikipedia page: Chambers. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case.
This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 00:42, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
BK, sorry about that. What you did is what I thought I was doing. Thanks for the correction. Best. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 02:14, 17 November 2008 (UTC) Stan
Why exactly did you avoid the redirect in this edit? Is there something in WP:PIPING that I am not aware of? Please reply on your talk page, Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 18:29, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
- I'm guessing that it was done because disambiguation pages aren't generally supposed to have piping? Nyttend (talk) 21:43, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
- Now I'm confused ... Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 23:55, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
- Two points:
- WP:PIPING reads: "Subject to certain exceptions as listed below, piping or redirects should not be used in disambiguation pages...Even when the disambiguated term is an acronym, initialism or alphabetism, links should not use redirects to conceal the expanded version of that initialism. For example, on the disambiguation page BNL, linking to the full article title Banca Nazionale del Lavoro is preferable to linking to a redirect at BNL (bank)."
- Try editing BNL, and you'll get a header that includes "The full article name should be visible; do not pipe entry names."
- Nyttend (talk) 00:03, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
- Two points:
- Now I'm confused ... Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 23:55, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
- Sesshomaru, don't be disingenuous. You know perfectly well that your idiosyncratic interpretation of WP:PIPING is not shared by many other participants in the disambiguation project. It has been discussed fairly recently, with the result being the text Nyttend mentions above. older ≠ wiser 01:17, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
- No need to get so aggressive! Anyway, Nyttend has a good point. Guess the BNL example serves as a good precedent, at least for now. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 01:43, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
- It's not unique to BNL. The same text appears in the edit window for any disambiguation page. older ≠ wiser 03:20, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
- No need to get so aggressive! Anyway, Nyttend has a good point. Guess the BNL example serves as a good precedent, at least for now. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 01:43, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Oakland University
Greetings. I think we've been going back and forth in editing the Oakland University article. I'm assuming good faith on your part, and I fully respect your desire to note that the university is geographically located outside the Rochester city limits. I am a professor at Oakland University, and I am well aware of the history regarding Matilda Dodge Wilson and OU's Rochester mailing address. If you feel the article is made stronger and more accurate by including that historical information, I have no problem with that at all.
On the other hand, though, I hope you will not remove edits to the article that accurately reflect the special relationship that OU administrators and Rochester city officials have established. For good or for bad, Rochester is officially OU's "college town" (or "hometown"), and that relationship involves everything from special student discounts at Rochester stores and restaurants to official OU involvement in Rochester events to future plans for local bus service running down University Drive from the OU dorms to Main Street in downtown Rochester. From the university's perspective, as reflected clearly on the OU website, it would be inaccurate to omit that relationship. None of this is intended to minimize the fact that the university campus is indeed located a couple of miles outside the Rochester city limits, between Auburn Hills and Rochester Hills. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.11.88.83 (talk) 14:46, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
- Provided that any such statements regarding this "special" relationship are supported by verifiable and reliable sources, I have no problem with including such statements. older ≠ wiser 16:18, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Check the current revision of the article to see if you think the citations I provided are suitable. Also, if it's not prying too much, could you give me a sense of why you seem to disdain the arrangement established with Rochester? (By the way, I live in Bloomfield Hills, not Rochester, so this issue is a matter of accuracy and not civic pride for me.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.11.88.83 (talk) 17:14, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
- I don't disdain the arrangement. I merely find unsourced statements using peacock language and neologisms dubious. The updates you made are fine. I just converted the bare inline URLs to formatted citations. older ≠ wiser 17:36, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
MOSDAB
Hi, on your recent reply to the MOSDAB discussion, could I ask you to reorganize your reply slightly? It's because you said "#1", but your "#1" is the same as my "#2"... But if you could reorganize so we're all saying the same number, I think it would help... The discussion is already confusing enough as it is! :) --Elonka 19:42, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for November 17, 2008 and before.
Because the Signpost hasn't been sent in a while, to save space, I've condensed all seven issues that were not sent into this archive. Only the three issues from November are below.
 |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 42 | 8 November 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 43 | 10 November 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 44 | 17 November 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 10:23, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
Denialist Hate Speech
First and foremost I would like to sincerely ask you for your help. Your input and patience is appreciated. I want to bring to your attention this. HD86 has made numerous comments such as "The Assyrians are EXTINCT people of ancient Mesopotamia whose name was stolen by some modern politicians and used in reference to the modern Syriacs. To label the modern Syriacs by "Assyrians" and to claim that "The Assyrian people trace their origins to the population of the pre-Islamic Levant" is indeed stupidity in its purest form." These comments are inflammatory, racist, unhistprical and outrageous. This user continues to deny that a whole race even exists. He needs to be wiki disciplined. This is unacceptable inflammtory denialist behavior. The equivalent of his statments would be that jews or arabs do not exist. Do you not see the point. His languge is very hateful and dimeaning to those of us involved in the project. If you take a look at his history he has similar incompetent statemetns regarding other controverisal topics. I ask for assistance in order to remove this hateful user from this discussion. He has denied the existence of an entire race that through ample ancient and modern evidence has existed for thousands of years. I will be waiting for your response.
Denialist Hate Speech
First and foremost I would like to sincerely ask you for your help. Your input and patience is appreciated. I want to bring to your attention this. HD86 has made numerous comments such as "The Assyrians are EXTINCT people of ancient Mesopotamia whose name was stolen by some modern politicians and used in reference to the modern Syriacs. To label the modern Syriacs by "Assyrians" and to claim that "The Assyrian people trace their origins to the population of the pre-Islamic Levant" is indeed stupidity in its purest form." These comments are inflammatory, racist, unhistprical and outrageous. This user continues to deny that a whole race even exists. He needs to be wiki disciplined. This is unacceptable inflammtory denialist behavior. The equivalent of his statments would be that jews or arabs do not exist. Do you not see the point. His languge is very hateful and dimeaning to those of us involved in the project. If you take a look at his history he has similar incompetent statemetns regarding other controverisal topics. I ask for assistance in order to remove this hateful user from this discussion. He has denied the existence of an entire race that through ample ancient and modern evidence has existed for thousands of years. I will be waiting for your response. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nineveh 209 (talk • contribs) 02:39, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
ortonville
i would appreciate it if i could edit the page pertaining to my hometown, without those who may not know of the events to which i refer to editing my comments off. i do not see any problems with allowing others to read about them, as they are not exactly "under wraps". I would thank you, a resident of albion, not ortonville, to please leave these region-specific events, which you will likely have not heard about, on their place on the page. thank you
aleya
Aleya2020 (talk) 20:22, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi BKonrad - Noting your participation in the Michigan Highways Project here on WP, I wanted to give you a heads up about an upcoming event, in case you might be interested. We have been doing an annual gathering of roads enthusiasts in Michigan every year in the month of December since 2002 (except 2006), gathering to share maps, photos and other interesting artifacts while shooting the breeze over lunch, then touring some interesting roads projects and highways of note in the area in question.
We've been doing most of them in SE Michigan, but this year we're going outstate and holding it in the Lansing area, on Saturday, 12/20/2008. We'll be meeting at Reno's East Sports Bar in East Lansing at 11:30 AM for lunch. Afterward, we'll be touring various projects and routes of interest in the Lansing area. The tour will be finished by 3:30-4:00 PM. If you have an opportunity, I hope you'll be able to join us for what always turns out to be a fun event. Some of the other WP roads editors from the State of Michigan are planning on attending at this time, for what it's worth. Please let me know if you might be interested, and I can give you further details.
Thank you very much, and enjoy the rest of your weekend! DanTheMan474 (talk) 19:21, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
Multiple reverts at Croton Dam (Michigan)
Hi, I see you've been in a minor reversion repetition at Croton Dam (Michigan). Let's take this to talk. I've given my view at Talk:Croton Dam (Michigan) already. Thanks. (PS, how do you get the special "welcome" with notes to posters to appear atop the edit box? I should do that for mine too). ++Lar: t/c 04:05, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
- (Refactored from User_talk:Lar per my policy ++Lar) The text comes from User talk:Bkonrad/Editnotice. See Wikipedia:Editnotice for more details. {{Editnotice}} has some bolierplate structure to help with formatting. I just happened to notice a discussion on WP:VPT, I don't actually know much about how it works. User:Davidgothberg seems most knowledgeable about this. older ≠ wiser 11:42, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
- Cool, thanks! I think I sussed it out, and I cribbed a bit from yours to set User talk:Lar/Editnotice up. Excuse me for giggling about the fact that I'm refactoring your note back here, given that we both prefer to keep things threaded! :) Appreciate the help. Also thanks for talking to Canis about the issue. Finally, do you think you're going to that roads meetup mentioned above? E. Lansing is not too far for me, it might be fun. ++Lar: t/c 14:13, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
- I had originally put my reply at the Talk:Croton Dam (Michigan), mistakenly thinking it was your talk page. It is kind of funny, I don't even pay that much attention to the chrome around the edit boxes. To be effective for editors as myself, oblivious of their surroundings, I suppose editnotices and similar such messages would need to have some sort of really tacky gimmick like a brightly colored, flashing background.
- Re the meetup, I will be traveling that day. It does sound interesting, although the introvert part of me rather enjoys the semi-anonymity of editing and is a little apprehensive about piercing the veil and associating real persons with usernames. older ≠ wiser 14:33, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
- Cool, thanks! I think I sussed it out, and I cribbed a bit from yours to set User talk:Lar/Editnotice up. Excuse me for giggling about the fact that I'm refactoring your note back here, given that we both prefer to keep things threaded! :) Appreciate the help. Also thanks for talking to Canis about the issue. Finally, do you think you're going to that roads meetup mentioned above? E. Lansing is not too far for me, it might be fun. ++Lar: t/c 14:13, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
Sorry
My comment, "So please stop wasting everyone's time with this pointless argument", was out of line, and I just wanted to apologize. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:24, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
- No problem. I know all too well how easy it is to get caught up in the heat of the moment and say things on talk pages I'd later wish I hadn't. older ≠ wiser 20:27, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Go
Is this your personal opinion or something of a rule? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 22:46, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
- See WP:ACCESS. 00:06, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
License tagging for Image:James_Couzens.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:James_Couzens.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.
For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 00:47, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Middle Village, Wisconsin
You did some really good work a few years back cleaning up the CDP language in some Wisconsin communities. Now a couple of editors who don't seem to understand the issues surrounding CDPs and unincorporated areas are trashing the very clear and accurate language you used to explain those issues. Please take a look at Middle Village, Wisconsin for an example. Thanks. 69.120.182.161 (talk) 22:38, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you very much for being aware that we're not trashing these articles :-) I've had a really difficult time over the last couple of days with all these IPs: I'm convinced that it's the same person, but without a sockpuppet file I'm not going to block the ones beginning with 12., as they've not as frequently been getting involved, and "only" one personal attack has been made.
- I'm going to get back to you later, as I need to get going now (helping with a pre-Christmas dinner :-), and college finals are looming. Thanks for the note. Nyttend (talk) 20:21, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
- I got a break and have just filed a sockpuppet report. Could you look at it and give your opinion? Nyttend (talk) 21:09, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Blocked
You have been blocked for a period of 24 hours for edit warring on Corn (disambiguation). It is essential that you are more careful to discuss controversial changes with the user in question, rather than simply revert them repeatedly: this applies even if you think or know you are correct. Edit warring helps nobody, and actually harms the page in question, and the encyclopedia. To contest this block please place {{unblock|your reason here}} below. Tiptoety talk 03:39, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Long time user with very little history of disruption in the past, I see no reason not to unblock along with his guarantee that he will start taking discussion to the talk page rather than edit warring. I'm contacting the blocking admin first though. Trusilver 18:37, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
- No objections, just note that the other party is still blocked and as such I hope Bkonrad will not take advantage of the situation. Tiptoety talk 18:42, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Geddes
My view is that the list you removed from the Dab is not redundant to Geddes (surname) bcz the surname page is appropriately ordered alpha, appropriately to the circumstance that people interested in the surname as a group of associated people are likely to know many of the names, and to seek them alphabetically. In contrast, altho the people surnamed Geddes could arguably be "see also" entries (since none of them would have their bios titled "Geddes"), readers who seek such people may be unable to remember more than the surname, or may have read or heard a scrap of something they want to pursue, that referred to the surname only, and don't know the given name. For them, referral to a long list in alpha order is cruelly inefficient -- especially when a list more useful to them has been prepared and removed. They have some context at hand, but the only context we can predict is that they almost always have an idea of the historical period of the person they want, so chronological order is the best way to get any reader to the portion of a long list where they can look at the descriptions to see what other info matches up with the data they know from memory or the context that drew their interest to the person.
--Jerzy•t 10:04, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
- That is an interesting perspective. I hadn't considered the chronological vs. alpha sorting. There is some merit to it, but I think that I still disagree because practically speaking the result is that there will be two lists that will inevitably become unsynchronized. Also, there is not (at least not the last time I checked) any guidance on WP:MOSDAB to order biographical entries chronologically. I think such chrono ordering is actually not always very obvious unless it is explicitly noted. Sure in some cases where the list spans many centuries it may be clearer, but many other times, without some explicit indicator, the non-alpha ordering almost looks like a mistake. It may be worth bringing up on WT:MOSDAB or on the DAB project page to see what others think. older ≠ wiser 12:38, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
- If you compare Hart (person) with Hart (surname) you'll see a nice example. I'd like to know what ought to be done in that case. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 16:42, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, that is a nice example, although I'm not sure Hart (person) is a very good name for such a page. It should probably be renamed something like List of people with the surname Hart or Hart (surname list arranged by birth). As it is, it is not at all obvious from the Hart disambiguation page what the difference between the two pages are. older ≠ wiser 16:56, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Hello
I would like to ask if you would be interested in helping me with a disambiguation page. The page existed solely as a means to list entries related to scientific names for different species of plants and animals.
I renamed the page from Robusta to Robusta (disambiguation) after I ran across a satellite that is also called Robusta. I added the satellite entry because they share the same name. So now the only entry that exists on this page that isn't related to the species is this satellite item.
There are about 25 entries related to the species and the introductory line only refers to them and not the satellite. So I think the intro line is what I'm needing help with. I'm just thinking there's a better way to do what I've done.
Would you mind looking at this dab page and see if you've got something up your sleeve? Thanks. E_dog95' Hi ' 06:22, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
- I don't have much time at the moment. A few quick suggestions. You may want to ask for additional assistance at WT:WikiProject Disambiguation if you haven't already. If Robusta is not going to remain a redirect to Robusta (disambiguation) and not be a page of its own, then the disambiguation page should be located at Robusta. You may want to consider making this into a set index article using {{SIA}} rather than a simple disambiguation page. The satellite could remain as a see also (this is perhaps slightly non-standard, but not such a big deal IMO). Finally, just to check completeness, you may want to examine All pages with titles containing robusta. older ≠ wiser 12:50, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
- OK, thanks. E_dog95' Hi ' 17:55, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
did you see the charter government page? it got deleted —Preceding unsigned comment added by Justin neff (talk • contribs) 14:25, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
hey Bkonrad —Preceding unsigned comment added by Justin neff (talk • contribs) 14:46, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Hammond (surname), and it appears to be very similar to another wikipedia page: Hammond. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case.
This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 16:39, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Inquiry
Is this really supported by the guidelines? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 20:30, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
- Seeing as how User:JHunterJ restored one in this edit, it's likely that the editor misinterpreted WP:ACCESS. What are your thoughts? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 06:18, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
the Sault
Sorry about that, I mistakenly changed the ref to SSM ON being the oldest settlement in ON. (I am pretty sure that is true, but that is beside the point). I meant to put in a citation needed tag after the 'greater SSM' claim, as it mentions it is rare, but there is no cite. If it is so rare it ought not to be mentioned, or, perhaps, a cite can be found. Again, sorry for the mess up. Dbrodbeck (talk) 02:50, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
Lowercase cDVD
Ah, very interesting. Didn't know you could do that; thanks! :) Ubcule (talk) 23:19, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
Glad to be of assistance. Not sure if I said what you had hoped I would, but there it is. Anytime you see a need to defend WP:COMMONNAME against compromise, or clarification of any general naming guideline, please let me know. Thanks. --Born2cycle (talk) 06:35, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
Hello
FYI, in your post to Talk:Barry Lyndon, I believe you intended to support the proposal to move the article back to its original title, but you neglected to indicate your vote. LiteraryMaven (talk) 22:05, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
- I did support here. older ≠ wiser 23:06, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I hadn't noticed your initial post! Thanks for introducing me to the term "hatnote." I assume it describes the links to other articles at the top of an article. (If I'm wrong, please let me know!) I never knew there was an "official" term for them. Happy New Year. LiteraryMaven (talk) 15:06, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
- There's an entire guideline for them: WP:Hatnote, although their usage is also covered by WP:Disambiguation and WP:MOSDAB. Cheers. older ≠ wiser 15:10, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Baba
If what you say is true [3], would you care to appoint me to the others? That individual seems to be the only one who is also known by the name Baba. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 00:12, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
- As described on the Wiktionary page, "baba" derived from Hindi is a generic term meaning holy man or spiritual leader. Many Hindu mystics have baba as part of their names or as an honorific. For example, consider the following "babas" who were also considered to be mystics:
- It is highly ambiguous to make a redirect such as Baba (mystic) point to a single person. older ≠ wiser 01:21, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
- To this effect, it might really be worth it to create the page Baba (name). It would be preferable to have Baba (mystic) redirect there than for it to take you to a dab page which does not list the other mystics. Thoughts? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 01:40, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
- That could work, although for most of these persons "Baba" is like an honorific, like "Sir" of "Father" (for priests). It is not typically part of their given name or family name. older ≠ wiser 01:44, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
- How dare you revert my change as vandalism! I am not a vandal, your usage of rollacking was entirely inappropriate. WP:AIN now knows about this. Comment there if you wish. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 01:50, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
- I already have. BTW, I didn't revert your edit as vandalism, but as a blatantly nonproductive edit. older ≠ wiser 01:52, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
- Doesn't matter what you decide to call it. WP:ROLLBACK is very concise on this. You should know better. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 01:58, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
- Yes it is and blatantly nonproductive is quoted from that page. older ≠ wiser 01:59, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
- No. I made a good faith revert citing WP:BRD, and you know this. I just can't believe you had the audacity to do such a thing ... Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 02:02, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
- then you have a perverse understanding of WP:BRD. You might be justified in reverting once, but even after you attempted to initiate a discussion you repeatedly reverted without even bother to wait for a reply. older ≠ wiser 02:04, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
- No more reverting. Let's finish up the various discussions before this gets any worse. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 02:09, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
- So why do you stupidly insist on reverting to your clearly defective versions? older ≠ wiser 02:17, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
- Read WP:AGF and WP:CIV. As usual, I am doing my very best in following Wikipedia's rules to the letter. Bkonrad, I'd appreciate it if you could respect that. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 02:28, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
- Right. Except that you tend to make peculiarly idiosyncratic interpretations of those letters. You might have tried assuming good faith yourself when you reverted my edits before even bothering to wait for a response. Thanks to your obstinancy, The Wrong Version of the Baba page is now protected for a week. Brilliant. older ≠ wiser 02:33, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
- Read WP:AGF and WP:CIV. As usual, I am doing my very best in following Wikipedia's rules to the letter. Bkonrad, I'd appreciate it if you could respect that. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 02:28, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
- So why do you stupidly insist on reverting to your clearly defective versions? older ≠ wiser 02:17, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
- No more reverting. Let's finish up the various discussions before this gets any worse. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 02:09, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
- then you have a perverse understanding of WP:BRD. You might be justified in reverting once, but even after you attempted to initiate a discussion you repeatedly reverted without even bother to wait for a reply. older ≠ wiser 02:04, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
- No. I made a good faith revert citing WP:BRD, and you know this. I just can't believe you had the audacity to do such a thing ... Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 02:02, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
- Yes it is and blatantly nonproductive is quoted from that page. older ≠ wiser 01:59, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
- Doesn't matter what you decide to call it. WP:ROLLBACK is very concise on this. You should know better. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 01:58, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
- I already have. BTW, I didn't revert your edit as vandalism, but as a blatantly nonproductive edit. older ≠ wiser 01:52, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
- How dare you revert my change as vandalism! I am not a vandal, your usage of rollacking was entirely inappropriate. WP:AIN now knows about this. Comment there if you wish. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 01:50, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
- That could work, although for most of these persons "Baba" is like an honorific, like "Sir" of "Father" (for priests). It is not typically part of their given name or family name. older ≠ wiser 01:44, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
- To this effect, it might really be worth it to create the page Baba (name). It would be preferable to have Baba (mystic) redirect there than for it to take you to a dab page which does not list the other mystics. Thoughts? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 01:40, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Good call on opening this up to gain greater concensus. Artw (talk) 02:43, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Airports, etc in articles about settlements
I hope my long message was both worth it and phrased appropriately, given the actions that I have seen have happened here... DDStretch (talk) 17:42, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
- Your message there seems well-wrought to me. older ≠ wiser 18:49, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Two Hearted River
The Two Hearted River mouth was the site of a lifesaving station, one of three established along this coast. I added the defunct government agency category for this reason. What do you suggest for linking the information about the Two Hearted River Lifesaving Station to other articles about lifesaving stations? --Wpwatchdog (talk) 18:36, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
- I added a link to the United States Life-Saving Service. It is also in Category:History of the United States Coast Guard, which seems to contain some other lifesaving station articles. older ≠ wiser 18:48, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you. The Two Hearted River Lifesaving Station was acutally one of five established along this coast. For more on these lifesaving stations, see Grand Marais, Michigan, another special place in the Upper Peninsula. --Wpwatchdog (talk) 20:31, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
December 2008
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Baba (honorific). Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 19:22, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Requests for comment
Neither of those appear to have worked - do you want to check the template again? Possibly just adding them manually would work better. Artw (talk) 17:46, 31 December 2008 (UTC)