User talk:Bkonrad/Archive 51

__NOINDEX__

The Signpost: 02 July 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 10:50, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Misrepresentations and incivilities
Bkonrad, I expect your retraction and apology. See this new subsection. Do not defame users in edit summaries. As an admin you should know better. N oetica Tea? 00:39, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 09 July 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 10:23, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Lamia move
Hey. I would appreciate it if you could cast your lot into the Lamia discussion more officially. I know we disagreed on it initially, but there is not much participation, and since you have been paying attention to the article somewhat frequently over the years your opinion on the matter would be appreciated. Thanks, 170.110.235.42 (talk) 15:51, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Notability
Can you help me understand the Wikipedia definiton of notability? Your comment notes that notability is not established, but I can't find anywhere what exactly is required for a person to be deemed notable. I'm new to Wikipedia and am more than willing to follow any and all rules, guidelines and unwritten formalities, but I need the opportunity to learn them. Thanks for your help. Lutheran4life (talk) 14:24, 13 July 2012 (UTC)


 * See Notability (people) and Lists. In particular, there should be some reliable source indicating not only that the person exists but why/how that person is notable. Independent (objective) sources that are not connected with the subject are generally more reliable indicators than sites which might be seen as self-promotional. older ≠ wiser 15:22, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

disambiguation
You wrote "no, every entry should have a blue link; certain redlinks are allowed, but should also have aredlink". Can you explain more?Ali Pirhayati (talk) 14:06, 15 July 2012 (UTC)


 * As navigation aids, the expectation is that each entry should have a navigable blue link.


 * See WP:DABSTYLE:
 * Each bulleted entry should, in almost every case, have exactly one navigable (blue) link; including more than one link can confuse the reader.


 * And MOS:DABRL:
 * A link to a non-existent article (a "red link") should only be included on a disambiguation page when an article (not just disambiguation pages) also includes that red link.


 * The examples at MOS:DABRL illustrate that entries with a redink and a blue link are acceptable. older ≠ wiser 15:23, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

John Swainson
FYI, the last few sources I added have lots more material that should be put into this article that you created. Best regards. 7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 16:07, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Please leave a message before saying "per discussion on talk"
Please leave a message before saying "per discussion on talk". --Shamans of Tengri 18:13, 15 July 2012 (UTC)


 * There is an ongoing discussion in which you (or the IP 58.83.252.64, which I assume is you based on the pattern of edits) are the only one advocating for expanding what is commonly understood by the term Turk. older ≠ wiser 18:32, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 July 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 10:48, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Congo
You were right to delete the entry on Congo, there is no page for Congorock as yet, but there soon will be as the page is under construction right now, I will revert your revert as soon as the page is activated. (Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Congorock - that is the link). Just letting you know that I am not upset what so ever by your revert as it was the reasonable thing to do. Thanks. 178.16.6.194 (talk) 18:29, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 July 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 10:59, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 July 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 11:22, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 06 August 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 09:02, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

David Gordon revert
hey, just for my better understanding: you reverted my entry of the steam engine engineer David Gordon from the list because there is no article about him? in the german wikipedia, where i come from, "red links" in disambiguation pages are more or less considered as an invitation to start and article about that person. over time the red links there turn blue, step by step. i will start an article about gordon in the german wikipedia, but not here. currently reading this about mr. gordon. thx. Maximilian (talk) 18:47, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

David Gordon, German Wiki, brand new article Maximilian (talk) 20:27, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Bloody Christmas
Hello. There is an ongoing discussion at the talk page of Bloody Christmas. I wish you had contributed to the discussion before editing. Whatever... All the best. --E4024 (talk) 18:29, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I looked at the discussion and determined I wanted no part in what appeared to be partisan bickering. The disambiguation page should conform with disambiguation page guidelines regardless of the outcome of the discussion. older ≠ wiser 18:31, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 13 August 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 10:12, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

For how long
Then for how long Kamrupi shall remain topic presented in a manner inappropriate? -Kurmaa (talk) 01:45, 15 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Until the ambiguously titled articles are updated using reliable sources. A disambiguation page should not introduce information that is not supported by the linked articles. older ≠ wiser 01:52, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 August 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 08:16, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Invitation/Asking your contribution
Heated discussion on the renaming of this article. Maybe the article is not very interesting in itself but there is quite an example of a debate on the principle of naming conventions on its talk page. Everybody most welcome. --E4024 (talk) 16:43, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 August 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 05:16, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

formerly on dabs
In you summaried that formerly is a significant detail. I don't think it's insignificant, but I also don't think it's needed for dab navigation. If someone reaches "CBS Records" because they're looking for the company that is now "Sony Music Entertainment", they won't have any trouble finding it with the shorter description. -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:45, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
 * There's no reason to be inaccurate in the name of brevity. older ≠ wiser 01:51, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed, but "or" is not inaccurate. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:52, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
 * It is, in that the entity is no longer CBS Records -- it is a former name of the entity -- "or" implies an equivalent alternative. older ≠ wiser 12:03, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
 * That's an inaccurate inference. "Or" does not imply equivalence. E.g., http://www.softshoe-slim.com/lists/s/stevens_cat.html -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:43, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
 * It does. The company WAS called CBS Records until January 1, 1991 when it changed its name to Sony Music Entertainment.  There is currently a CBS Records in existence, CBS Records (2006), which is not connected in any way with any entity called CBS Records before 1991.  That is why we have DAB pages such as CBS Records to direct the reader to the correct article and to allow editors with misdirected wikilinks to make them land to the correct article. Steelbeard1 (talk) 13:49, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
 * @JHJ, the only sense in which CBS Records is Sony Music Entertainment is in historical contexts. Your correlation with the performer (using an unreliable source at that) is irrelevant as the performer is still commonly known by his previous stage name. Indeed, the article is at Cat Stevens not at either Yusuf Islam or Steven Demetre Georgiou. older ≠ wiser 13:58, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Sigh, it wasn't a citation, it was an example. I you feel like changing simpler "or X"s to ", formerly known as X,"s, I'm not reverting, but it still isn't needed for either correctness or navigation. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:15, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Stage names is not a good example. Legal entities that went by different names over the years default with the current name. Steelbeard1 (talk) 14:22, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
 * @JHJ Double on your sigh. To most people "or" implies an equivalent alternative. There is no reason to imply such inaccuracy on disambiguation pages where a couple of extra words is all that is needed to be clear. It would be nice if you would not remove such necessary clarifications when you edit dab pages. older ≠ wiser 16:40, 31 August 2012 (UTC)