User talk:Bkonrad/Archive 108

__NOINDEX__

Primary topic
Hi Bkonrad, can you please help me WP:DETERMINEPRIMARY of "Majorana" ("j", not "i")? -- 05:43, 2 January 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:38FC:A300:58EC:826:2EF9:14E (talk)

How we will see unregistered users
Hi!

You get this message because you are an admin on a Wikimedia wiki.

When someone edits a Wikimedia wiki without being logged in today, we show their IP address. As you may already know, we will not be able to do this in the future. This is a decision by the Wikimedia Foundation Legal department, because norms and regulations for privacy online have changed.

Instead of the IP we will show a masked identity. You as an admin will still be able to access the IP. There will also be a new user right for those who need to see the full IPs of unregistered users to fight vandalism, harassment and spam without being admins. Patrollers will also see part of the IP even without this user right. We are also working on better tools to help.

If you have not seen it before, you can read more on Meta. If you want to make sure you don’t miss technical changes on the Wikimedia wikis, you can subscribe to the weekly technical newsletter.

We have two suggested ways this identity could work. We would appreciate your feedback on which way you think would work best for you and your wiki, now and in the future. You can let us know on the talk page. You can write in your language. The suggestions were posted in October and we will decide after 17 January.

Thank you. /Johan (WMF)

18:12, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Edit conflict
Not sure exactly how this happened, but I intended to make the exact same edit as you two edits prior (removing the two extra links). I took too long to hit publish and should have been more careful. Hoof Hearted (talk) 20:01, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

LAS
Good day, Sir or Madam,

With respect to | my recent edit on this page,  you | reversed said edit, remarking, "a pox on sections with one entry."

I can't tell whether that was intended to be humorous or mocking. Please care to help me understand?

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NavyBlueSunglasses (talk • contribs) 12:02 5 January 2022 (UTC)


 * I didn't revert your edit; I consolidated two sections that had only one entry into the other uses section, and also removed the extra links and unnecessary piping from the entry you added. older ≠ wiser 12:23, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Building control
You have a point. FYI, the current situation is an improvement on the previous redirect to Building code, and is based on the outcome of a recent RfD here  Chumpih  t 21:03, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Nomination of Traiteur (disambiguation) for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Traiteur (disambiguation) 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/Traiteur (disambiguation) 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. 162 etc. (talk) 17:48, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Superfluous disambiguation pages
Re your reversion of an edit blanking and redirecting this disambiguation page with only one entry, please nb WP:ONEOTHER: "If there are only two topics to which a given title might refer, and one is the primary topic, then a disambiguation page is not needed—it is sufficient to use a hatnote on the primary topic article, pointing to the other article." Thanks. —  AjaxSmack 01:48, 17 January 2022 (UTC)


 * , Explain to me what the point of such a page is when the target is an article. Either it remains a disambiguation page or you can take it to AfD or try proposing for speedy deletion. It is nonsensical to leave it redirecting to an article. That is not what WP:ONEOTHER suggests. older ≠ wiser 02:33, 17 January 2022 (UTC)


 * The idea was to save a little time in the process. Ashley River was recently moved from  per a move request rendering the dab page superfluous.  Redirecting that dab page to the primary topic causes the robotic processes that keep Wikipedia running to eventually delete that page with no extra effort, so the act was quite sensical from my perspective considering that the hatnote performs the function of the dab page.  As deletion of the dab page was explicitly considered in the move discussion, there is no need to waste AfD time on the issue (i.e. my time), but since I've now spent more time discussing it here than I would have making an AfD request, I'll leave it alone. —  AjaxSmack  16:18, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Which robotic processes are you referring to? I'm not aware of any authorized bot that deletes such redirects -- only manual actions. It perhaps saved YOU a tiny bit of effort, leaving other editors to clean up in your wake. older ≠ wiser 17:09, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Please reverse your action in reverting my redirect
You acted before I saved the target page -- which was delayed beyond your 6-minute timeframe because I needed to correct a link. However, having completed the action, I cannot now revert your reversion. Please reverse your redirect. SCHolar44 (talk) 03:48, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Another editor has fixed this now. NFA. SCHolar44 (talk) 02:50, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 January 2022
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:20, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day!
 Happy First Edit Day! Have a very happy first edit anniversary!

From the Birthday Committee, CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 22:18, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Wouldn't Finding Nemo be appropriate for redirect?
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Little_Nemo&diff=next&oldid=1073538658

The title's name is Little Nemo. And in Finding Nemo, the character itself is small/little. It can save a click for readers to go from Little Nemo Disambiguation to Nemo disambiguation and finally Finding Nemo. --Likhasik (talk) 04:23, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
 * You added the template to Little Nemo – that makes no sense. As for Finding Nemo, even though the fish is little, there is nothing to suggest he is known as "Little Nemo" or that people might search for the film using that name. older ≠ wiser 11:12, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 February 2022
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:19, 27 February 2022 (UTC)