User talk:Bkonrad/Archive 104

__NOINDEX__

"don't go", "must support"... army discipline, a little?
We're not talking vaccinating babies, welding microprocessors, handling IEDs, running nuclear reactors, or attacking China. And even there, or especially there, nobody is gaining anything by checking one's brain at the cloakroom. One ends up in bad places and finds himself invoking the Nuremberg defense, which seldom works. Willingly putting on uncalled-for straitjackets and going voluntarily into Procrustean beds is not for me. Whatever, we're totally windschief entities, skew lines, no communication possible. Arminden (talk) 13:45, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

May 2021
Your recent editing history 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&mdash;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&mdash;even if you do not violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. – Uanfala (talk) 18:08, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Sorry for posting this notice again, but the message of the previous one doesn't seem to have sunk in. You've made 4 reverts on that page in the space of less than a day. – Uanfala (talk) 18:08, 6 May 2021 (UTC)


 * And once again, it goes both ways. You seem to have completely missed the point of WP:DABMENTION and WP:DABACRO. older ≠ wiser 19:18, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. There's a section on the article talk page, see Talk:Hamilton, where your reply would be welcome. Reverting without an edit summary is rude and implies that you think no better of it than vandalism. Thanks, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:28, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Precious anniversary
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:06, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Bowling Green reversion
Why?? Pithecanthropus4152 (talk) 19:38, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
 * There's no article and external links are not allowed on disambiguation pages. older ≠ wiser 19:45, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

If I understand how this works, then I'd be free to create an article for Bowling Green, and then link to that in the disambiguation page? 2601:1C0:CC01:6B30:90D3:D0F1:719B:FD91 (talk) 19:15, 24 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Correct, but of course the article should meet other applicable guidelines (e.g., WP:NOTABILITY and WPVERIFIABILITY). older ≠ wiser 21:42, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Why
Why you have just deleted my edition? ("Nature boy" song) 95.175.7.168 (talk) 21:44, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The entry fails WP:DABMENTION. older ≠ wiser 22:43, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Signatures
Just in case you haven't seen it... Wikipedia_talk:Signatures may be of interest. Pam D  07:16, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Reverted changes at The End

 * Dear Bkonrad:
 * If you remember, you reverted changes on The End disambiguation page.
 * In my defence, just to say I only referred this joke page (which is called Wikipedia:The End) as an Easter Egg. No vandalism was intended.
 * That's why I putted at the end of that wiki.
 * If you consider this, please revert your reversion.
 * Thank You:
 * Carel3DS (UserTalk) 10:05 29 may 2021 (UTC)

Vanderbilt Redirect
Hello. I saw that you reverted my redirect. I am trying to change this page's url to (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vanderbilt_(disambiguation)) and rerouting (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vanderbilt) to (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vanderbilt_University). Please let me know if you can help since completing this process with my knowledge involves having a temporary broken link, which is what you undo'd. I would appreciate any help or guidance on the process of doing this, thank you! BugsMeanee (BugsMeanee) 15:10, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Cf. equivalent request at my talk page. I would suggest discussing this first. (And Bkonrad, thanks for fixing my ill-considered substitution at The Condor BTW :) -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:18, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
 * This would require discussion as I'm not sure the university is the primary topic. See WP:RM for instructions on starting discussion to move Vanderbilt to Vanderbilt (disambiguation) and change it to redirect to the university. older ≠ wiser 19:32, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Suddha
Hello. Could you either explain or undo your reverts on Suddha?

The alternative romanizations redirect to Suddha so I don't understand why you removed them. Similarly, "Suddha" may easily be mistaken for "Suddhi"; they differ by only one letter and share a the same root meaning (purity) differing only grammatically, which people unfamiliar with the grammar of Sanskrit (ie. most people) may not recognise. It therefore makes sense to mention "Suddhi" as part of disambiguation as many disambiguation pages similarly do when an ambiguous term is likely to be confused for another term. So, again, I don't understand why you removed it. Scyrme (talk) 15:37, 7 June 2021 (UTC)


 * User:Scyrme, actually, none of the transliterations you added redirect to Suddha. Śuddha and Shuddha don't exist and Shuddhi is a separate disambiguation page. Further, it makes no sense for the lead of a disambiguation page named "Suddha" to mention these other spellings that are not included in the disambiguation page and make no mention at all of the term "Suddha". The normal lead for a disambiguation is described at MOS:DABINTRO. older ≠ wiser 16:13, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Richmond Disambiguation
Hello, Bkonrad.

I hope you are doing well.

I recently tried to add a "most commonly refers to" section at the top of the disambiguation page for Richmond, similar to those for places like Charleston or Portland. In each of these cases, there are many municipalities with that name, but it is needlessly difficult to find the ones people are most often looking for in the long list. When creating such a section for Richmond, I included examples in BC and VA (the two largest) as well as Richmond in the UK (the namesake of Richmond, VA and, by extension, Richmond, CA and others.)

I notice that you have deleted this. Could you explain why? Is there a reason this would not be appropriate here as opposed to in many other similar circumstances like Charleston or Portland? Would you propose a different list, perhaps including Richmond, CA?

Thanks for your time.

Don — Preceding unsigned comment added by Don.s.okeefe (talk • contribs) 15:44, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Talk:Richmond is potentially relevant. –  Uanfala (talk) 16:42, 19 June 2021 (UTC)


 * I'm assuming this is the edit you are referring to. There are a few issues with it.
 * 1) you removed the wiktionary link
 * 2) I'm not absolutely opposed to some sort of placement of "most common uses" at the top -- only to your somewhat arbitrary selection. See further discussion at Talk:Richmond older ≠ wiser 17:29, 19 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the reply. I'm sorry I deleted the wikitionary link -- I had no idea. For the rest, I've moved over the talk page. Thanks. – Don.s.okeefe (talk) 19:07 June 2021 (UTC)

Fact deletion
Hey, Bkonrad

I wanted to ask you why you deleted my part, sure it was not an article or no further information was given about the series. But it's actually true. The one reference I gave was probably not enough and you deleted it probably just because there was not enough information. But if you went to the reference you would see the series was in fact real along with the creator. Even though someone else had the playlist but it contained the episodes made by the creator. So please explain why did you delete my part in the first place?

--GoldenChannels (talk) 03:12, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
 * that's not the purpose of a disambiguation page. They are not a directory or catalog of any fact in the world. They help readers navigate to existing Wikipedia articles that at least mention the ambiguous term. older ≠ wiser 09:58, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining. GoldenChannels (talk) 19:12, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Your instantaneous reversion of my edits to the disambiguation page for 'Bush'.
I would like to understand your thinking when you reverted my edits to this page as 'unhelpful'. I assume you gave them consideration before instantly negating them. As a result of your reversion the page now remains with 'pubic hair' as one of the top three of 32 definitions (I had moved that definition to 'other uses'); and with 'a mechanical bearing' as the only meaning for 'bushing' (I had generalised 'bushing' to include other mechanical and electrical devices, with a link to the disambiguation page). Perhaps you could explain how your version is better than mine? Thanks. Masato.harada (talk) 15:21, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * There were a wide range of non-compliance with WP:MOSDAB in your edits, including using piped links to obscure the full title and your edit to busing was nonsense as you made a piped linked to the disambiguation page with a description as if it were an article. older ≠ wiser 15:41, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Just a reminder that you appear to have hit 3R again. – Uanfala (talk) 17:09, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. – Uanfala (talk) 18:39, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 June 2021
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:14, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

black friday nonsense
A few points:
 * 1) You accuse me of 'vandalism' but you are the one making edits without any notes.
 * 2) You are literally making the page LESS ACCURATE by reverting my edit.
 * 3) That said, I see your point I suppose, up to a point, a point which could easily have been made the first time you made the reversion instead of just pressing 'revert' with a goofy grin on your face and expecting people to read your mind. 'Black friday' in 1929 has more actual connection to the shopping holiday than it does to anything else the market crash.
 * 4) I will rephrase my edit to be even more accurate. If you wish to make changes please do so, but do not simply press the revert button without providing a justification.
 * 5) See this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Reverting if you're confused about how to do things.