User talk:AmbigDexter

Welcome!

Hello, AmbigDexter, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:


 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~&#126;); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Where to ask a question. Again, welcome! Runcorn 21:24, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

ABC
Hello, I left you a message here. Br, Brz7 11:41, 11 August 2006 (UTC) Hello AmbigDexter, I'm awaiting your reply. Br, Brz7 18:03, 22 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Please follow guidelines. AmbigDexter 18:08, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

ELO
Regarding your redirection of ELO to "Electric Light Orchestra", I feel that it should lead to a disambiguation page for the following reasons: I will await your reply before I take further action. You may reach me on my talk page. Thank you. -albrozdude 17:08, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The Elo rating system is most commonly reffered to as "Elo". In fact, when I first heard of the "Elo" system, I would not have been able to find it if not for that exact disambig page.
 * "ELO" is a perfectly acceptable abbreviation for "Electronic Literature Organization" (even that page uses the abbreviation "ELO")
 * Being as "ELO" is just an abbreviation for "Electric Light Orchestra", I feel that the other topics represented on the disambig page require just as much notice as does the band. If you feel that "ELO" is most commonly associated with Electric Light Orchestra, then I will create a seperate disambiguation page so that people don't have to jump through hoops to find the article they're looking for.
 * Disambiguation pages are for differentiating between pages with the same name. WP:DAB states that "Disambiguation pages are not search indices. Do not add links that merely contain part of the page title ". I've seen it mentioned a few times in discussions on the talk page for WP:DAB is that disambiguation pages eliminate confusion, not lack of existing knowledge. As far as I can tell, of the pages previously listed at ELO, "Elo rating system" and "Electronic Literature Organisation" are the complete names of these topics, the article names are clearly different and so there is no risk of confusion. Therefore I redirected ELO/Elo to a very prominent ELO, as the band is often known as just ELO and has also used ELO on their albums.


 * But sometimes the problem might be that one knows of a topic, but not what it might be called on Wikipedia. Perhaps you might wish to bring this up at Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation. AmbigDexter 19:52, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your reply. I've left a comment here if you'd would also like to comment. Perhaps there should be notice on the Electric Light Orchestra page alerting that "ELO" redirects there, and points users to the rating system or lit. org. pages? I agree that ELO is probably usually going to refer to the band, but I think that "ELO" can commonly be used for other purposes and thus the other pages require some disambiguation. -albrozdude 20:32, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * As a chess player I can confirm that 'Elo' is a standard search term. Directing to the band would cause annoyance, make navigation harder and reduce the usefulness of the Project. BlueValour 23:25, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Disambiguation pages
Firstly, thank you for your keen interest in Wikipedia. It is accepted practice that DAB pages have a broader use than the guidelines strictly provide for. By thinning them out you are making them less useful and detroying the hard work of others. Might I suggest that in this early stage of your WP career, that these are battles that you do not wish to become involved in. Instead, I would suggest that you build your WP reputation by writing articles on subjects that interest you, improving other articles etc. If I can help further, please leave a message here and I will pick it up. BlueValour 20:32, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


 * It is sadly a common misconception that Wikipedia is best served by disambiguation pages, even when nothing is disambiguated. AmbigDexter 20:40, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Really, no good will come of cutting large numbers of links, and finding some thin reason for that. Please note for example where the DAB style page says this: However, if you find that another editor has felt the need to create such entries, please do not remove them. And as it says at the bottom of that page, we are talking about guidelines. Large cuts in content are not welcome. Charles Matthews 17:52, 22 August 2006 (UTC)


 * No need has been expressed, other than the adding of listcruft, so the guideline should be followed. – AmbigDexter 18:06, 22 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Listcruft is an offensive term, by the way. And you are wikilawyering. Just be sensible and stop making edits that are obviously contentious, and negative in terms of navigation round the site. Charles Matthews 18:18, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

AmbigDexter, please see also Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages) and Articles for deletion/Allen (surname) for more forums on this topic. -- JHunterJ 16:55, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

3RR Warning
Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert a single page more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. BlueValour 21:29, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Further guidance
I would ask that you study WP:3RR. There you will see that 3 reverts a day is not an entitlement. If your edit gets reverted then you should take the issue to the talk page - the talk page holds the suthority for changes to any article. I notice that you have been reverting changes to a number of pages. Please be aware that persistant reverting can lead to a block even if you do not technically contravene the 3RR rule. My suggestion is that you take the project forward by looking for articles with 'sources' or 'cleanup' tags and tackling those. Engaging in this sort of narrow policy warring wastes your time and that of other hard pressed editors. BlueValour 23:54, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Hell (disambiguation)
I have reverted the edit that you made to Hell (disambiguation) for the reasons outlined above by Charles Matthews. Your edit made the page less useful and removed hard work by other editors. I have, however, carried out a much needed cleaning up. If you wish to pursue your edit then you should, first, argue the case on the talk page and see if you can obtain concensus. If you reinstate your edit, without doing this then, at a minimum, your changes will simply be reverted by other editors. BlueValour 00:31, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:10, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

A page you started (Pauline Henry) has been reviewed!
Thanks for creating Pauline Henry, AmbigDexter!

Wikipedia editor DrStrauss just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

"Hi, I've marked your page as reviewed. Thanks for your contributions!"

To reply, leave a comment on DrStrauss's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Dr Strauss  talk  10:40, 1 February 2017 (UTC)