Talk:The Heart of New York

New dab
, the incoming links still need to be resolved for this. I removed the first entry as it didn't meet MOS:DABRL and wasn't mentioned on the blue link given. From my brief investigation of the incoming links here, I couldn't find it there either. The other entries I changed to comply with MOS:DABENTRY. Again, adding entries which don't comply with the guidelines is a huge waste of your time as they get swiftly adjusted, and it wastes a lot of other editors' time and causes a lot of bad feeling. If you think the guidelines should change, that is always up for discussion - just start a discussion at an appropriate venue like the Wikiproject Disambiguation page. Who knows, the guidelines could be changed to what you want and your work would no longer be swiftly re-written. Boleyn (talk) 09:14, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
 * , I appreciate your addressing me on this matter and your attention to detail. It took a bit longer than it should have, but the three remaining links have been attended to (I have recently grown too dependent on the kindness of who left this user page posting on October 16: "I'm on break. Remember to WP:FIXDABLINKS!"). As for the first entry, while it is factually correct and even appears (unsourced [without being mentioned in any article or list]) in the Italian Wikipedia's wikilink to The Heart of New York (It:The Heart of New York), it should not have been added to English Wikipedia's The Heart of New York dab page before becoming part of an article or a list. I intended to add it to the article delineating its creator, Frederick S. Armitage as well as to the List of American films of 1901, but was distracted by other matters and neglected to do so. Those additions will obviously have to come first, before it is reinserted. Finally, I would not have been devoting nearly ten years of my time and energy to Wikipedia if I felt that I was wasting my time (even if my contribution is reverted, it still remains as a matter of historical record). I agree with the guidelines and, while there may exist some differences with my interpretation of those guidelines, I do not feel that such differences represent a chasm sufficiently wide to require a discussion. We had a fairly extensive exchange on this subject in April of last year (User talk:Roman Spinner) and I regret any bad feeling that this matter may have caused. Between 2008 and now, four other Wikipedians have contacted me regarding this, but none has complained about waste of time or bad feeling. If anyone (including yourself) wishes to discuss this further, my talk page is always open in welcome to all comers. &mdash;Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 04:22, 20 October 2015 (UTC)