User talk:Bkonrad/Archive 80

__NOINDEX__

Boys will be Boys
Dear BKonrad:

I am trying to add my wife's book, BOYS WILL BE BOYS: Breaking the Link between Masculinity and Violence to the Wikipedia BOYS WILL BE BOYS listing under LITERATURE.

It keeps getting removed.

What am I doing wrong? The book, still in print, has sold over 50,000 copies in several editions and is quoted and used extensively.

Thanks.

Gary Ferdman https://lanternbooks.presswarehouse.com/books/BookDetail.aspx?productID=61880 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Garyferdman (talk • contribs) 20:46, 3 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Disambiguation pages are not a catalog of books in print. Disambiguation pages are meant to help readers find content on Wikipedia, so each entry on a disambiguation page needs to link to a Wikipedia article that has relevant content for the topic. However, there is no article on either the book or the author, so there is nothing to link to. older ≠ wiser 21:02, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks...
... for this edit. My main intention was to remove the duplication, and I somehow allowed myself to overlook the distinction between "gnu" and "GNU", and get sidetracked into a spurious issue on primary topic. Your version is obviously better, and what I would have done if I had been thinking clearly. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 19:40, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Recent "edit" question
If you had to remove my Enterprise page update, why even have fictional references to the word? 75.128.101.135 (talk) 10:21, 6 May 2017 (UTC) D.G.K. 5/6/2017. There are multiple problems with your edit. First, it is an unambiguous partial title match. The entry you added is called "Extensive Enterprises", not "Enterprise". Second, it isn't even mentioned in the linked article. older ≠ wiser 10:45, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Question
. Papí  • talk 19:52, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Two reasons. First, there is no mention of cake day in the Imgur article, which is a requirement for inclusion in a disambiguation page. Second, removing the rfd notice disrupts the in process discussion. If you like, you can create the disambiguation content below the rfd notice and suggest that as an alternate resolution at the rfd. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bkonrad (talk • contribs) May 14, 2017, 19:56 (UTC)

Body Electric
Hi. Please justify your reversion of my addition on the talk page. The Body Electric massage school is a 30 year old reputable and well known institution. CouplandForever (talk) 04:33, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Disambiguation pages are four navigating existing articles on Wikipedia. Your entry ghost l failed on two points. First it did not have any link to an existing article with relevant content. Second it contained an external link which are not permitted on disambiguation pages. older ≠ wiser 11:06, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Boner edit warring
Regarding our edit war on the Boner disambiguation page (I am mainly referring to of yours), I have already explained this several times, yet you keep reverting my revisions with no explanation.


 * 1) Boner is not a slang term for a film blooper, so linking to that article is incorrect.
 * 2) A “People” section with two subsections is better than a “People and characters” section, as characters are people, and such a section is not used on any other disambiguation page.

Can you please explain your reasons for undoing my revisions before continuing to do so? Papí • talk 13:51, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I'd ask the same of you. 1) there is no reason to suppress the TOC; 2) boners now redirects to this page and should be mentioned in the lead; 3) the page blooper does actually mention the term and is as much a synonym and a better link that the faux wiktionary link to blunder; 4) with only one fictional character and two real people, there no reason for more fine-grained sectioning -- a reader can readily tell from the description what is what; 5) your sloppy reverting also removed entry for erection, which does mention "boner" as slang and also remove entry to Blunder (disambiguation) which I think is more appropriate the faux link to wiktionary. older ≠ wiser 14:15, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * 1. I don’t know what you’re talking about.
 * 2. Fair enough.
 * 3. “Blooper” does not refer to just any mistake. It refers to mistakes made in a film or on television. Linking to that article would be incorrect, as “boner” is not synonymous with “blooper.” You can’t say “The Lord of the Rings has so many great boners!” for instance. “Boner” is a slang term for “a silly mistake,” not a blooper.
 * 4. I think that consistency is key, and no other disambiguation page that I know of use the “People and characters” heading. Just because one of the subsections only contains one item does not mean that the subsection should not exist.
 * 5. You’re calling my reversions sloppy, yet you reverted my entire revision multiple times when you only explained why you changed one thing, out of the many things that I changed in those revisions. Papí  • talk 14:21, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) You added which suppresses display of the TOC
 * 3) Nit-picking. An actor who makes a boner while taping will often appear in a blooper reel. The distinction is not clean as you describe. The main point though is that the article blooper has actual existing content that is relevant; making such faux links to wiktionary is a non-standard practice for disambiguation pages.
 * 4) Personal experience is really not a reliable guide. But in any case, I expanded the list of surname holders and moved the character back into the main list of miscellany. Sections containing only one-entry are complete waste of space and unnecessary overhead. I and many other disambiguation regulars routinely trim and merge sections containing a single entry.
 * older ≠ wiser 14:38, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * 1. The reason I added that was that having a TOC consisting of only two main sections is unnecessary.
 * 2. A blooper refers to a mistake made in a film or on TV. A blooper is a boner, but a boner is not a blooper. Like I said, “boner” is a slang term for “a silly mistake,” not “blooper”; therefore, linking to the Blooper article on the Boner disambiguation page is incorrect . Papí  • talk 14:45, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * 1. See 4)
 * 2. The blooper article has relevant content regardless or your opinion on the definitional boundaries.
 * older ≠ wiser 14:48, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The Blooper article is about mistakes made in film and on television, not any mistake, so linking to that article is not appropriate, as not only is it outright wrong, but it can also be misleading, as “boner” is not a slang term for a mistake made on TV or in film. Papí  • talk 14:50, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I strongly disagree. It contains relevant content and should be linked. It is a disservice to readers not to include it. older ≠ wiser 14:55, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

It does not contain “relevant content.” The Blooper article is specifically about TV and film mistakes, and “boner” does not refer to that. Boner refers to “a blunder; a silly mistake.”

By the way, so that it can include the plural in the search, so there is no reason not to use that template on the Boner page now.

Anyway, I have a question for you: Why did you revert my revision where I put the slang terms into its own section? Papí • talk 15:02, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that I suppose, although the fix looks a bit like a kludge. older ≠ wiser 15:10, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * About slang terms, there is at present no valid entry for the dict def synonymy with blunder. older ≠ wiser 15:13, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Although the fix looks a bit like a kludge. I’m not a master at templates, so if someone wants to clean it up, feel free to do so. Papí  • talk 15:15, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Precious two years!
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:12, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

May 2017
Your recent editing history at Genghis Khan (disambiguation) shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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 BRD 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 your 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 don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 06:57, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Please stop reverting on this page. In the BBC documentary source listed in the lead article it is clearly explained that Genghis Khan means "Universal Ruler." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Julymath321 (talk • contribs) 17:29, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
 * If it is a significant enough detail, the article itself should mention it. And until it is explicitly mentioned and referenced in the article there is no basis for making the description on the disambiguation page at odds with the description in the article. older ≠ wiser 17:35, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

It is clearly explained in the BBC documentary source listed in the article that Genghis Khan means "Universal Ruler." Genghis Khan does NOT mean "emperor." It is important to post historically accurate, factual, and correct information instead of randomly posting fabricated content such as that Genghis Khan means, "emperor" when it does NOT. Usually white nationalists are the ones who actively seek to down play the Genghis Khan historical figure because he is non-western figure. But it is important to post historically accurate information on an encyclopedia instead of randomly made up content. Julymath321 (talk) 17:44, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
 * In terms of disambiguation, it makes no difference whatsoever what anything else else might say or not say. What matters is what the article says. If the Wikipedia article does not say this, there is no basis for having the disambiguation page say this. older ≠ wiser 17:53, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Hybrid
Why don't you prefer the hybrid move? I think in its most literal definition, hybrid refers to biology. Osh33m (talk) 02:19, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Please do not move pages by cutting and pasting content. If you have a look at Talk:Hybrid, you'll see the move is not uncontroversial. Please use WP:RM to start a full move discussion is you think the articles should be named differently. older ≠ wiser 02:29, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Clarification of "Pagan (disambiguation)"
I am trying to understand the changes you recently undid on the Pagan (disambiguation) page, where you added the Edit Summary "Rm redundant, improperly piped link." Not sure what this means or what you intended with the change. I am a relatively new Wikipedia Editor, so am trying to learn how to do this effectively, and will really appreciate your helping me understand the best way to edit this. I was trying to show that Modern Paganism and Neo-Paganism actually go to different pages and are used differently, though it seems I may not have done that in the best way. I even hope adding this comment here is the best way to have this conversation / clarification. Thanks in advance for your guidance in this! FULBERT (talk) 02:27, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The entry went to the same article that was already linked to in a previous entry and in general piping is not used on disambiguation pages when it obscures the actual target of an ambiguous term. See WP:Disambiguation and WP:MOSDAB for more information. older ≠ wiser 02:47, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I think I understand. I sure wish there were a guide on how to learn how to do these things! FULBERT (talk) 03:00, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

AR-15 (disambiguation)
I have rewrote the second paragraph of the Colt Automatic Rifle page as follows below. I also added a quote and references. Will this meet your requirement for inclusion on the AR-15 (disambiguation) page...

"It is one of many Squad automatic weapon-type firearms that have been developed from the Armalite AR-15. "The overall name of the new weapon family was a derivative of the original AR-15 by adding Colt to the name, resulting in the CAR-15. The name now stood for Colt Automatic Rifle." Others include the Colt CMG-1 machine gun and CAR-15 Heavy Assault Rifle. " — Preceding unsigned comment added by RAF910 (talk • contribs) 21:44, 30 May 2017 (UTC)


 * On the one hand, strictly speaking it still doesn't really establish that these CAR rifles were ever known as "AR-15". It only establishes that they are derivatives (and that the naming convention is derivative). But on the other hand, I don't really care all that strongly. older ≠ wiser 21:55, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The problem is that most people really don't know the differences between an ArmaLite AR-15, a Colt AR-15, a CAR-15, a CAR, or any of the generic semi-auto ARs, or even M16s and M4s. They all look the same, therefore they're the all same. I'm trying, probably in vain, to sort them out with the appropriate redirects. Anyhow, if you don't care, may I undo your last edit? --RAF910 (talk) 00:13, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * That was fast...Thank you--RAF910 (talk) 00:20, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Genghis Khan (disambiguation)
Bkonrad, STOP vandalizing the Genghis Khan page by continuously posting false information.Julymath321 (talk) 17:24, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * It is not vandalism. It is restoring an accurate and neutural description in place of a non-ensure a non-neutral one. older ≠ wiser 17:33, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Why do you continue to remove the book?
Why do you remove the book THE CHOSEN ONE? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.173.64.8 (talk) 19:13, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Disambiguation pages are for navigating content on Wikipedia. External links are not allowed on disambiguation pages. older ≠ wiser 19:47, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

So then put the book back and remove the link. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.173.64.8 (talk) 09:37, 5 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Every entry should contain a navigable blue link to an existing article with relevant content supporting the entry. older ≠ wiser 10:44, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

NOT TRUE. There are many articles that have not been written that are on Wikipedia written IN RED. The support is the link I left which you removed to AMAZON. You maybe older BUT NOT WISER. I highly recommend you change that signature.


 * Please review the guidelines for Disambiguation WP:MOSDAB. In particular, this statement under WP:DABSTYLE: or this statement from MOS:DABENTRY:   older ≠ wiser 18:14, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 9 June 2017
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:18, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Arkorful
What is the purpose of placing a template on an article that only says "This page lists people with the surname Arkorful. If an internal link intending to refer to a specific person led you to this page, you may wish to change that link by adding the person's given name(s) to the link" on a page that has no list of people at all? It does not even mention one. I've already removed this twice, I won't do it again, but it does seem uselessly bureaucratic to insist on having a template that doesn't apply to the article and will baffle any reader who comes across it. SpinningSpark 14:59, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
 * That suggests to me that this unreferenced stub should have been deleted. If reliable sourcing can be found, both to support claims made in the article as well as basic notability, there might be something to discuss, but as is, this stub is worse than nothing. older ≠ wiser 17:55, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 June 2017
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:31, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Bacon
What was the problem with my edits??? ɱ (talk) · vbm  · coi) 15:39, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:Cut and paste moves. older ≠ wiser 15:55, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Uhh, that's an admin's guide for how someone like you could "fix" a cut and paste move. I'm not sure cut and paste moves are now illegal, so I was being bold making that move, which should be uncontroversial. If you feel strongly about preserving edit histories in the right place, can you make a formal move? Best, ɱ  (talk) · vbm  · coi) 15:59, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Moving a page and Help:How to move a page are both pretty explicit about not doing cut and paste moves. I'm not sure I agree with the move. I'd suggest starting a WP:RM discussion to establish consensus for the swap. This does not appear to be uncontroversial as the pages had been previously swapped in 2009 and have been in the current state since then. I think you'd need to demonstrate there is a need to change the long-standing arrangement. older ≠ wiser 16:24, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Fine, though technically neither are guidelines or policies. Anyway, in the future I'd recommend you give me just a little more respect when reverting, at least giving an edit summary explaining your move instead of a simple, vandal-dealing-like, revert. Alternatively, posting a comment on the article or my talk page while reverting, or even just posting a comment without any reverting. I've been an editor here 8 years; we should work collaboratively as this encyclopedia is intended to work. ɱ  (talk) · vbm  · coi) 16:47, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Copying within Wikipedia is probably the most relevant guideline. I'm not sure what edit summary might be more descriptive than "rv cut and paste move" If you've been here for 8 years you really should be aware that cut and paste moves are problematic at the very least. older ≠ wiser 17:15, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Which also doesn't call it illegal. Maybe next time you could say "rv cut and paste move per WP:RIA/controversial-discuss on talk" And yes I've been here 8 years, but I write articles. You'll note I really don't have any user rights, because I don't really use tools for administration, I write articles. So I barely move articles, and from what I remembered, cuts-and-pastes weren't outrightly banned, and it seems I am still correct in that idea? ɱ  (talk) · vbm  · coi) 15:03, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
 * If you're looking for some explicit policy that says cut and paste moves are forbidden, then I suppose not. However, I think most admins (and most editors involved with page moving) that noticed a simple cut and paste move would immediately revert it to avoid complications due to divergent edit histories. older ≠ wiser 15:21, 30 June 2017 (UTC)