User talk:Bkonrad

__NOINDEX__

Watch your reverts carefully!
Vasily Zavoyko: If you found it unnecessary to insert a disamb. page, - fine, - but please be more careful not to delete other good changes. This is a note to you. Thank you! Cotling (talk) 14:47, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Please stop deleting relevant content without valid reason. I'm referring to specifically to the Medina_(disambiguation) page.

You reverted my changes, and I improved the content, but you reverted again. In both cases without stating a valid reason. People searching for this music is likely to end up on this page. Not only is Medina part of the title and the name of the band, but the chorus repeats "Medina" over and over again.

Please stop reverting relentlessly, or at least explain why you think it doesn't belong. Thank you in advance. 149.88.17.134 (talk) 19:10, 15 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Please see my additional topic on this page for a potential example of an unwarranted revert (removing citations, clarifications made by a credentialed expert) on an article badly needing support.
 * 2601:500:8701:D30:816A:63B3:6F65:8AA5 (talk) 23:29, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

I agree. Rogue editor on an ego trip. Wikipedia is diminished by this sort of person holding so much power on the site. Please begin editing in a way that reflects awareness of Wikipedia users' being a higher priority than your ego. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by SteGenevieve (talk • contribs) 04:30, April 27, 2024 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but no, your edit was not an improvement. Please review WP:MOSDAB; in particular, WP:DABONE and WP:DABMENTION and MOS:DABNOENTRY. older ≠ wiser 19:30, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Bro please stop this. You deleted A.FLOCK's edit man. He made it better. I tried to find beluga youtuber, he put that, then you Deleted it? Why? Now I can't find it. Awesome for your revert which made me look for more time to find what I was looking for. Thx. 103.172.217.171 (talk) 07:48, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Cedric and Phyllis
The standard title for a given name article is Name (given name) since the word itself can refer to a number of other things besides the name. I moved these pages to titles that reflect the titles of multiple other given name articles. i have major objections to your reverting them. These are seemingly uncontroversial moves based on previously established precedent. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 15:35, 1 January 2024 (UTC)


 * No, these articles follow standard naming conventions in that a parenthetical phrase is not automatically appended. In cases where the name is the primary topic, there is no need for the parenthetical disambiguating phrase. older ≠ wiser 15:43, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
 * This is unduly confusing considering the number of other things that might have the name or might have the name in the future such as a single-named performer or an organization or painting, etc. The standard title Name (given name) clarifies that the topic is tge history and usage of tge name. These are not disambiguation articles. They are properly articles regarding usage of tge name. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 15:50, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Preemptive disambiguation has been proposed many times and soundly rejected with few exceptions. There is none for WikiProject Anthroponymy articles. older ≠ wiser 15:59, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
 * @Bookworm857158367 If you think that either name is not the Primary Topic ( which could well be argued, with places, ships, etc), you could propose, for each, a not-uncontroversial multiple move of the disambiguation page to the basename and the given name page to the disambiguation name, as set out  at WP:Requested moves. There would then be wider discussion. There might be a lot of incoming links to clear up, I haven't checked.  Pam  D  16:53, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I’d argue that the name pages aren’t actually disambiguation names but are properly articles about the meaning, history and usage of the name itself. They have significance in and of themselves. They aren’t intended to be place holders referring people to other articles. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 16:59, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I think you misunderstood what PamD was suggesting. If you think the name articles are not the primary topic, you should propose a requested move of both the name article and the disambiguation page. For example, to move Cedric to Cedric (given name) and Cedric (disambiguation) to Cedric. older ≠ wiser 18:39, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Easy to find my post confusing, as I'm on phone and didn't notice that my intended "disambiguated name" had been changed to "disambiguation name" ( and it tried to do it again just now!) Sorry I didn't spot it. Pam  D  19:04, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

The Signpost: 10 January 2024
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:48, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Apologies
I was trying to revert vandalism (the "habitual line-stepper" thing), and it seems your attempts to do the same were caught up in that. I am not a vandal and am sorry for the inconvenience! Patient Zerotalk 00:40, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

You're quick!
What's the rush? I was just gearing-up to begin an article on the Remington Starfire and you removed my preliminary addition to the Starfire disambiguation page. Have a look at the Olivetti Valentine too – this is where I spotted the Remington Starfire (and also another interesting typewriter called the Monpti, which could also be a useful addition to this encyclopaedia!). Cheers, Cl3phact0 (talk) 12:06, 29 January 2024 (UTC)


 * WP:Write the article first. Entries on dab pages need to have some existing article with relevant content to link to. older ≠ wiser 14:59, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 January 2024
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:12, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Michael Williams
Why did you delete Michael Williams? 193.119.102.196 (talk) 11:04, 1 February 2024 (UTC)


 * If you mean this edit, there is no article for the person. older ≠ wiser 13:22, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
 * So! Many of the entries don’t. It’s just to provide information on a Michael Williams citation. Why not mind your own business? 193.119.102.196 (talk) 21:22, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Which other entries do not have a linked article that supports the usage? older ≠ wiser 23:38, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

The Signpost: 13 February 2024
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:34, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Snow Peak reversion
Wikidata item Q11312604 references "Snow Peak" as the English article, and that is the article to which the ja-wiki article is linked. Furthermore, it's unnecessary to have (company) in the name when the awkward parenthesis could be placed on a less-frequently visited disambiguation page. Please stop reverting the article to "Snow_Peak_(company)".

Ishiura (talk) 12:29, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Wikidata does NOT in any way ever dictate how articles are titled in English Wikipedia. Do not move pages by cutting and pasting the content as that makes a mess of the edit history and attribution of contributors. If you are not able to move a page yourself, you can make request following instructions at WP:RM. As this is not an uncontroversial move, it should be discussed to establish consensus that the company is the primary topic. older ≠ wiser 12:36, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * OK. I'll create a topic on Snow_Peak_(company)'s talk page.
 * Ishiura (talk) 12:47, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Invitation to join the Twenty Year Society
Dear ,

I'd like to extend a cordial invitation to you to join the Twenty Year Society, an informal group for editors who've been participating in the Wikipedia project for twenty years or more. &#x200B;

Best regards,  Chris Troutman  ( talk )  14:05, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

You reverted my additions for no reason given.
So 3 of my edits, on things like (name) and what it’s referring to pages, you quickly removed information about that name could refer to. All of them were specific abilities inside of a Roblox game. And I can’t cite for that because it’s a small edit and there isn’t gonna be an entire news article about a new ability inside of a Roblox game. May I politely ask why they were reverted? Also, I’m new to Wikipedia, just so you know. JAFactsDude (talk) 02:27, 14 February 2024 (UTC)


 * The edit summary was pretty clear (aside from one where I may have inadvertently hit rollback). None of the terms were so much as mentioned in the linked article. That is a minimal requirement for a disambiguation entry. There is no point to direct readers to pages that have nothing to say about a topic. older ≠ wiser 03:40, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Okay, make sense now. JAFactsDude (talk) 03:42, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Gabatha
For fuck's sake, I'm working on it on my phone, you destroyed most of my work, what's the hurry??!@ Arminden (talk) 15:00, 27 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Get a grip. You removed the disambiguation template (without any indication more work was forthcoming) and I restored it. If you consider that as having destroyed most of your work, you seriously need to re-consider what you are doing. older ≠ wiser 15:49, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

The Signpost: 2 March 2024
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:00, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Sometimes, you can do the work for others
Back in 2004-2008, when I was an active contributor, and I'd see someone make a change that was useful, but required some extra work to make it comply with the rules, I would do that work for them, rather than reverting the change.

It appears things have changed in the last 20 years. Feel free to edit the neck gaiter article to describe how it can be referred to as a "buff". Here are some sources (usage is colloquial, hasn't quite made it into the Macquarie Dictionary yet). I'm going to log out for another decade or so. Aramգուտանգ 21:18, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Chime
What was the reason for the revert? Also, Chime is a prominent DJ, albeit without a wikipedia page yet, I thought this should suffice in the meantime. Perhaps it should be moved to a different section of the Chime page? Or should I provide a source? Finesden (talk) 23:17, 12 March 2024 (UTC)


 * The purpose of disambiguation pages is to help readers navigate to existing articles with relevant content. If the is no article to direct readers to, then there is no reason to add an entry to the disambiguation page. older ≠ wiser 23:22, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks. I'll try to keep that in mind when editing disambiguation pages.
 * But on that note, how come this exists on the page: "Amazon Chime, an enterprise collaboration service from Amazon Web Services". It doesn't link to a page called Amazon Chime. Finesden (talk) 23:31, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Without scouring history, I couldn't say for certain, but it may be that the linked article Amazon Web Services used to contain some mention of Chime. But there is no trace I can see in the article, so it should be removed. older ≠ wiser 23:47, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

My edit on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CML
@Bkonrad Respected sir,

Many thanks for reverting my tag on the above page. Since I am a beginner, I would like to know why. So I do not make the same mistake again.

I am sure, that "CML" is a well-known and accepted abbreviation of "Classic metaphyseal lesions". I can support this statement with several authentic references. But last time when I did it [on some other disambiguation page], the tag was reverted, and when requested to educate me, the answer was that "no references are allowed on Disambiguation pages."

So I am -kind of - in a bind. If I put an authentic reference, the tag is reverted, because it is not allowed. If I do not put such a reference, the tag is reverted [for the supposed reason], that it is an unacceptable abbreviation.

So what should a beginner do?

Kindly enlighten and oblige. Thanks.

Anil1956 (talk) 03:47, 13 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Anil1956, your edit did not link to any existing article. The sole purpose of disambiguation pages is to help readers find articles with content relevant for an ambiguous topic. Please review WP:disambiguation and WP:MOSDAB (or see WP:DDD for a very brief summary). older ≠ wiser 17:54, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Regarding TACL (disambiguation)
I noticed you removed my db-g7 from TACL (disambiguation). You left the edit note Perfectly fine redirect. But I don't see why anyone would link to TACL (disambiguation) if they mean to link to a disambiguation for TACL when TACL is itself already a disambiguation. I only created the page in the first place because TACL was previously not a dab, but rather contained the contents of TACL (programming language), which has since been moved to that page. Could you clarify your reasoning? Brusquedandelion (talk) 05:01, 25 March 2024 (UTC)


 * See WP:INTDABLINK. While at present, there aren't any pages that need to link to this particular dab (such as in a hatnote or see also section), this redirect would be used if any such need arose. Chances are that even if this redirect were deleted, it would have soon been recreated. older ≠ wiser 09:07, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 March 2024
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:39, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Unexplained revert on AXA (disambiguation)
Hello. You’ve removed the mention of the biggest Dutch bicycle lock manufacturer without any explanation in this edit, care to explain please? Thanks. Andrej Shadura (talk) 06:58, 23 April 2024 (UTC)


 * At the time, the entry was not linked to any article. older ≠ wiser 09:48, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 April 2024
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:47, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

IMO - Integration Management Office - reverted
Hi Bkonrad,

would you please let me know why the edit of "Integration Management Office", which is hard to find, but often used in fusion contracts of companies with the acronym IMO was reverted? SabineWanner (talk) 18:20, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

And I just noted that you also reverted TSA a couple of years ago. Why that? What is wrong with contributing rare acronyms?SabineWanner (talk) 18:25, 25 April 2024 (UTC)


 * , disambiguation pages are not glossaries of acronyms. Each entry requires one blue link to a article that contains information about the ambiguous topic. Please review WP:Disambiguation and WP:MOSDAB. For a very abbreviated summary, see WP:DDD. older ≠ wiser 20:35, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia has changed a lot even in this case. I remember very different times. Thanks for the clarification. This makes Wikipedia useless to a certain extent. It's good to know and will help a lot during my next conference, when I talk about "How to use Wikipedia for translation". SabineWanner (talk) 05:24, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
 * The requirement that every entry have a blue link is not new. older ≠ wiser 09:23, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Your time editing Wikipedia would be better spent verifying the accuracy of content...
...and not nitpicking another editor's choice of making an important word a wikilink. You're the reason so few potential new editors, many of them with subject matter expertise more impressive than yours in most (if not all) areas, have any interest in participating in the Wikipedia project. Please begin editing in good faith. Thank you! 100.15.238.176 (talk) 04:19, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

You're no librarian. And certainly no cataloger.
Your concerns about "excessive information" and "excessive links" frustrate this librarian exceedingly. Are you concerned about bandwidth, or just an unhappy meddler? SteGenevieve (talk) 04:34, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Hello
Hello, first of all, thank you for being such an active contributor. I would like to expand some pages with relevant and meaningful contemporary (or non-contemporary) art projects, which is my specialty as a curator. I believe it's important to include this section to provide a comprehensive view of how artists are contributing to our society, addressing various subjects, and presenting their proposals.(maybe only five Maybe I haven't proposed, titled, or written it well? Thank you for letting me know. Perhaps a selection of 5 is enough so as not to dilute the original meaning of the word? Nonetheless, I still believe it's important to discuss today's artists who are already published and active in society, in order to offer visitors the opportunity to discover how the subject is being addressed by artists in a rapidly changing world.

Thank you again for your response. Vidya-Kélie (talk) 09:56, 6 May 2024 (UTC)


 * That is not the purpose of disambiguation pages, which are navigation aides to help readers find topic that have the same name or are otherwise ambiguous. older ≠ wiser 10:01, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @Vidya-Kélie If The Sun in art or perhaps Sun in art is a topic on which other people have already published material in Reliable independent published sources, then it could perhaps be either a new article or a section within The Sun in culture; we already have Sun in fiction too. But it's not appropriate to try to develop this as a subject within the Sun (disambiguation). And, incidentally, when you add a section heading you don't need to bold it, the system will format it appropriately automatically. There's a lot to learn about editing Wikipedia but it's an interesting journey. Happy Editing!  Pam  D  11:32, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
 * And, @Vidya-Kélie, on these edits, congratulations on working out how to format the bulleted list, but note that Wikipedia doesn't use ordinals like "21st" for dates, just the plain number "21" - see a lot more detail at MOS:BADDATE. Lots to learn, as I said above! Pam  D  11:40, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

TotalErg
Hi, this is an official source for the acronym TE https://web.archive.org/web/20170617080053/https://www.totalerg.it/nei-nostri-punti-vendita/carte-petrolifere/totalerg-card "Sulla rete a marchio TE 24/24, le forniture saranno fatturate al prezzo di listino Carte TotalErg Card..." InterComMan (talk) 16:20, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
 * To comply with WP:DABACRO, the target article needs to describe these details. older ≠ wiser 16:42, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I don't quite understand what the problem is, could you explain yourself better? Thanks in advance. InterComMan (talk) 08:11, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
 * From WP:DABACRO: The article TotalErg says nothing about the use of the initialism TE. older ≠ wiser 08:26, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Then for that matter TotalEnergies shouldn't be included either: on the page it doesn't say that it is abbreviated as TE. InterComMan (talk) 08:51, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
 * The logo is a stylized te. older ≠ wiser older ≠ wiser 09:07, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Also the logo of TotalErg was TE in 24/24 service stations.   InterComMan (talk) 09:19, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
 * If it is a notable detail, it belongs in the article, not only on a talk page or an edit summary. older ≠ wiser 09:22, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
 * And so I reiterate that TotalEnergies should also be removed from the disambiguation page. InterComMan (talk) 09:26, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Why? The stylized te logo is very prominently displayed on the article. older ≠ wiser 09:40, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Ok but she is not referred to as "TE" in any way in the article. InterComMan (talk) 09:49, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Sometimes it is not necessary to explain what is obvious. older ≠ wiser 10:05, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
 * But what's the problem in including TotalErg too? There are sources that prove that "TE" is also used as an acronym for TotalErg. InterComMan (talk) 10:18, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Because there is nothing whatsoever in the article itself that suggests such usage. As I said above: older ≠ wiser 10:20, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 May 2024
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:57, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

why revert dab referencing of running water?
show logic. you must show that because Running water (case matters) redirects to tap water, Running Water should not and dab should be on Running Water and not in running water (disambiguation) and that dab link should not be in top of tap water pageMussharraf Hossen Shoikot (talk) Mussharraf Hossen Shoikot (talk) 12:58, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
 * First, you should not move pages by cutting and pasting the content. That is rarely appropriate as it makes a hash of the edit history. All of the entities on Running Water are titles which is it is the disambiguation page rather than Running water (disambiguation). You need to provide rationale and establish consensus for why the title case page should redirect to tap water. I have restored an updated hatnote to the tap water article. older ≠ wiser 13:10, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
 * better idea would be to report to ani and let admins sort out your persistent revert which looks like an attempt at vandalism. you deliberately avoided answering why Running water should redirect to tap water but Running Water should not Mussharraf Hossen Shoikot (talk) 13:13, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
 * You persist in making a cut and paste move without consensus or even a sound rationale. Go ahead and make a report (and watch out for the boomerang). older ≠ wiser 13:15, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Yeah, ANI is not for content disputes.
 * I saw the Running Water/Running water thing at ANI and you can put me in for disambiguation page for Running Water due to a variety of proper noun Running Waters out there. I do not think it should be redirected to tap water, and have now put the page on my watchlist. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 14:25, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @CoffeeCrumbs@Mussharraf Hossen Shoikot "Running water" to me means flowing water, as in a river or a stream: Google it and the first many hits are for audio or video of soothing flowing water. I don't know whether there's anything in Wikipedia about that, but certainly "running water(s)" contrasted to "standing water(s)" is an ecological habitat term (waterside plants etc), and I've now added that to the dab page.
 * I'm also not sure whether "running water" has to be "tap water": if a house has a pump in its back yard, do the residents have "running water"? They certainly have "piped water", and it's a massive improvement on having to fetch water from a communal pump or a remote waterhole. Pam  D  15:06, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'm not sure tap water is the best primary target for running water. But that is a different discussion I think. As for the current disambiguation, all of the entries other than the primary topic redirect are titles and so I think that until there is consensus that there is no primary topic, the dab page should be at Running Water. There is no reason to force readers who intentionally type the capitalized version to go to some other article and then through the hatnote to the dab. older ≠ wiser 18:37, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
 * "variety of proper noun Running Waters" exist and that is why page move to Running water (disambiguation) should happen to clearly show it with Running Water being redirect as Running water is redirect Mussharraf Hossen Shoikot (talk) 15:42, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
 * As for why the redirects should be different, as you already mentioned, also known as WP:SMALLDETAILS. older ≠ wiser 13:17, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
 * the case matters sentence was said to show that the 2 pages have different cases and already they have different functions, which does not add up. where does the "case matter" justify your revert? Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents ani post made and linked here for you to know Mussharraf Hossen Shoikot (talk) 13:25, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Precious anniversary
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:48, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Moving of Debugging to Debugging (software)
The move was discussed in the talk page of Debugging. You are most welcome to express your views there.

Laiwoonsiu (talk) 14:18, 17 May 2024 (UTC)


 * I don't have an opinion on the matter other than it is improper to use a parenthetical disambiguating term when there are no other existing articles that could have that title. older ≠ wiser 15:32, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Narcissus (film)
Hello. Is it not true? I fixed it. Is it not necessary to remove this template then? Gadir (talk) 13:38, 27 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Why? That is precisely the situation the R from incomplete disambiguation template is meant for. older ≠ wiser 14:08, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of List of places named Sokil


A tag has been placed on List of places named Sokil requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G14 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a disambiguation page which either
 * disambiguates only one extant Wikipedia page and whose title ends in "(disambiguation)" (i.e., there is a primary topic);
 * disambiguates zero extant Wikipedia pages, regardless of its title; or
 * is an orphaned redirect with a title ending in "(disambiguation)" that does not target a disambiguation page or page that has a disambiguation-like function.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time. Please see the disambiguation page guidelines for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the. Firestar464 (talk) 18:18, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Hi
Hello can you give me your idea about subject and thanks Omarbinomar9 (talk) 11:21, 31 May 2024 (UTC)


 * What subject? older ≠ wiser 11:26, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
 * The subject of "blocked again." LTA self-promoter. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 11:36, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

The Signpost: 8 June 2024
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:25, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Revert on Root (linguistics)
You removed well-supported, cited content reflecting consensus in the field of lingusitics that removed conflation of lemma (psycholinguistics), lemma (morphology), non-concatenative morphology / consonantal roots / Semitic roots, and root, written by a PhD candidate in Linguistics. Can you explain why you reverted multiple edits by only saying "None of this is an improvement" without further explanation? Thanks.

2601:500:8701:D30:816A:63B3:6F65:8AA5 (talk) 23:24, 8 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but your edits made a confusing mess of the article. older ≠ wiser 23:27, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
 * My edits conceptually clarified multiple topics which were conflated as listed above. It sounds like the definitions used may not have agreed with your notions. It's a shame since the article is in dire need of help from an expert. I explicitly identified multiple definitions of the term 'root', specifically identified at least one theory for one of the definitions, cited a highly cited Max Plank researcher, and distinguished concatenative root from non-concatenative roots (Semitic). It doesn't stand that my edits made it confusing and you still haven't provided an explanation or a reasonable argument with any evidence. I teach courses in this topic so it's a shame that rather than working with me to improve the article you have reverted it in its entirety so it no longer reflects state-of-the-art. 2601:500:8701:D30:816A:63B3:6F65:8AA5 (talk) 23:33, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I urge you to reread my edits and their descriptions. These are complex topics. Here is are some works by highly respected scholars in these particular fields of linguistics that may help clarify any confusion you might have. You are welcomed to look for more of Aikhenvald's, Dixon's, Harley's, and Haspelmath's work:
 * Compound and incorporation constructions as combinations of unexpandable roots
 * Haspelmath, Martin. 2023. Defining the word. Word 69.3: 283-297.
 * A bit less “radical”: Roots as solitary contentful morphs.
 * Dixon, Robert, and Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald. 2002. Word: A typological framework. Word: A cross-linguistic typology 1: 41.
 * Haspelmath, Martin. 2020. The morph as a minimal linguistic form. Morphology 30.2: 117-134.
 * Harley, Heidi. 2014. On the identity of roots.Theoretical linguistics. 40.3-4: 225-276. 2601:500:8701:D30:816A:63B3:6F65:8AA5 (talk) 23:55, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is written for a generalist audience. It is possible that your edits may be technically accurate, but they are mostly incomprehensible. older ≠ wiser 00:01, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Then edit them rather than revert them, or add additional tags or templates for someone who can do so. These sound like personal feelings.
 * Compare the pages on Distributed Morphology and Exoskeletal Model. These are highly specialized and may be technical. By that reasoning, these would be removed. All Linguistics pages are more specialized than for a 'generalist audience'. A reminder that the Simple English Wikipedia exists for a reason.
 * You lowered the quality of the article and reverted text in the style of a "personal reflection, personal essay, or argumentative essay" and "original argument about a topic" which had been removed.
 * 2601:500:8701:D30:CCC4:5261:EF8:607F (talk) 00:37, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Look, I only noticed your edits because they had bad hatnotes which placed them into Category:Articles with redirect hatnotes needing review. Besides the bad hatnotes, the short description was indecipherable and most of the other edits were steeped in unintelligible jargon. I've no interest in arguing with you about it. I do not have the article on my watchlist, so you can go ahead and wreck whatever havoc, err, improvements, you like. Though if you re-add a bad hatnote or some other obvious error, that might pop up on my radar again. older ≠ wiser 01:10, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Noticing you tried to change the page to this again. That I've immediately reverted it again should tell you that there's a more substantial issue here. You have to write for a general audience, this is non-negotiable: this isn't General relativity where its own introductory article is required. It's possible, I promise—don't point to other poorly written articles as an excuse why this one should be poorly written also. Remsense  诉  13:58, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Nomination of List of places named Sokil for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of places named Sokil is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/List of places named Sokil until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished. Dan the Animator 16:51, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Disambiguation pages
Hello, I have a question concerning disambiguation pages. You changed my edit at Swingle and you seem to be or are a Wikipedia editor that is familiar with many of the rules.

At Manual of Style/Disambiguation pages, it says: "If a topic does not have an article of its own, but is discussed within another article, then a link to that article may be included if it would provide value to the reader. In this case, the link may not start the line (unless it has a redirect that is devoted to it), but it should still be the only blue wikilink. For example:

Maggie Anderson may also refer to:


 * Maggie Anderson, a character in the musical play Brigadoon

It is often useful to link to the relevant section of the target page using anchors and conceal that by making it a piped link. For examples, see § Where piping may be appropriate, above.

If the topic is not mentioned in the other article, that article should not be linked to in the disambiguation page, since linking to it would not help readers find information about the sought topic."

So, can I have redirects to other Governing Body members (like the link at the Swingle redirect article to Brother Lyman Alexander Swingle) that don't have their own article? Can or should I share other examples? Junkönig (talk) 16:31, 23 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Yes, that is possible, although I'm not a big fans of redirects for names of entities that are unlikely to ever have their own articles, or at least some substantive relevant content within an article beyond merely being mentioned in a list. Lyman Alexander Swingle was a previously existing redirect that seems to have been created as a blank and redirect or some poorly sourced content. In that case, there is at least some potential that the old content might be restored and updated with better sourcing.
 * If the only content is that a person appears in a list with little potential for expansion, I think it is clearer for readers to use a descriptive link as you quote from WP:MOSDAB above. Otherwise, readers might be at a loss as to why they ended up in some differently titled article when they click on a person's name. older ≠ wiser 16:46, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Okay, thank you very much. I will create redirects to Governing Body members that previously had a full article which where then made into redirects. I will provide examples later. Junkönig (talk) 13:20, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Okay, here are my edits so that now, the style is similar to the redirect of Lyman Alexander Swingle at the Swingle redirect article:
 * - John Booth (John C. Booth)
 * - William Barry (William Lloyd Barry)
 * - Schroeder (Albert D. Schroeder)
 * - Barber (surname) (Carey W. Barber)
 * - Losch (Gerrit Lösch)
 * - Herd (surname) (Samuel F. Herd)
 * - Anthony Morris (Anthony Morris III)
 * The following people didn't have previous articles and are in a descriptive style:
 * - Thomas Sullivan (Thomas James Sullivan)
 * - Groh (John Otto Groh)
 * - William Jackson (William Kirk Jackson)
 * - Chitty (disambiguation) (Ewart Charles Chitty)
 * - Jaracz (surname) (Theodore Jaracz)
 * - John Barr (John E. Barr)
 * - Pierce (surname) (Guy Hollis Pierce)
 * - Lett (Mark Stephen Lett)
 * - Sanderson (surname) (Douglas Mark Sanderson)
 * - Cook (surname) (Kenneth Eugene Cook, Jr.)
 * - Winder (surname) (Jeffrey Winder) Junkönig (talk) 14:10, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Metagenetics (disambiguation)


A tag has been placed on Metagenetics (disambiguation) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G14 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a disambiguation page which either
 * disambiguates only one extant Wikipedia page and whose title ends in "(disambiguation)" (i.e., there is a primary topic);
 * disambiguates zero extant Wikipedia pages, regardless of its title; or
 * is an orphaned redirect with a title ending in "(disambiguation)" that does not target a disambiguation page or page that has a disambiguation-like function.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time. Please see the disambiguation page guidelines for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 20:03, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

The Signpost: 4 July 2024
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:38, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Murugan
I am just expanding and improving the article Murugan in order to make it a good article on Wikipedia by removing the redirect and typos in it and adding good and accurate content there but you are reverting my good faith edits always. I am telling you to not revert them for this reason and let me improve and expand that article. 120.56.168.46 (talk) 16:44, 4 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I don't see anything remotely approaching an attempt at a good article. You might try starting with Draft:Murugan and when that reaches an acceptable state it can be moved. older ≠ wiser 17:49, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * However, there is no draft in Wikipedia named Draft:Murugan for me to edit and improve into a good article through. You can make the article Murugan to be a draft now and i will edit and improve that to an acceptable state and then you make it an article. 120.56.169.129 (talk) 19:14, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * So, i will edit and improve that Murugan article now itself by myself and improve it into a good article and release it into the mainspace. 2409:40F4:2B:E3F7:8000:0:0:0 (talk) 05:27, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Acoustic punk nominated for redirects for discussion.
A page you've edited, acoustic punk, has been nominated for redirects for discussion. Please see Redirects for discussion for the discussion. Everyone, including you, is welcome to participate in the discussion! Moline1 (talk) 04:01, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Indonesian names
Hi Bkonrad,

In regards to recent edits, I've read that most Indonesian people don't really have surnames (Indonesian_names) so I was leaving surname off intentionally and just linking Indonesian name in the leads of those. Thoughts? Thanks, ~WikiOriginal-9~  ( talk ) 16:00, 12 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Then use . Although I think would also apply to family/clan names and patronymic names. Better place to ask would be WP:WikiProject Anthroponymy or WP:WikiProject Indonesia. I wouldn't call them disambiguation pages unless they are disambiguating persons known solely by a single name. older ≠ wiser 16:22, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Regarding SSMB
Hi, I noticed that you've reverted my edit on SSMB for being an "undiscussed change", so I'm conflicted on whether to create a talk page discussion or set it up as an AFD because: I'd like to hear your input on this, thanks in advance.
 * As I stated in the original edit reason, I don't think there's any plausible reason for being an acronym for Super Smash Bros. Melee beyond being just a misspelling of SSBM. The page was originally created as a redirect to SSBM which itself a redirect to that game's article and was subsequently have double redirect fixed, but otherwise neither the article made any mention to, nor are there any sources for SSMB being an actual acronym for that game.
 * I initially thought Mahesh Babu would be the most suitable redirect for this, but then I realized after your revert that SSMB was actually used in conjunction with the sequential number of films he starred, and that acronym was not actually mentioned anywhere in the article. In fact, there was a brief conflict on whether this should have redirecting changed to that article or not, before someone decided to make it a disambiguation instead.
 * The third entry, besides grammatical errors, is a violation of MOS:DABNOLINK. Though if the subject is notable enough to warrant an article or redirect to a relevant subject then it may be a suitable replacement.

- NotCory (talk) 21:39, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Firenze SM Novella does have an iata code
Yes, it does, I use the codes all the time when issuing rail tickets. I'm in the travel industry for 40 years, so I know. See List of IATA-indexed railway stations for further info. Cheers! --Funandtrvl (talk) 01:00, 17 July 2024 (UTC)