Wikipedia

User talk:Bkonrad/Archive 62

< User talk:Bkonrad
Latest comment: 10 years ago by DarthBinky in topic VFB
Archive 55←Archive 60Archive 61Archive 62Archive 63Archive 64Archive 65

The Signpost: 30 April 2014

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Zong (disambiguation)

Latest comment: 10 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Reference Zong (disambiguation), where should the discussion be held?  SAMI  talk 16:42, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

What is it that you want to move? older ≠ wiser 16:44, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
There is a page Zong classified as disambiguated page. I want to move Zong to Zong disambiguation so as to make space for ZONG to Zong.  SAMI  talk 16:47, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
@S.M.Samee:Sounds like you'll need to propose a multi-page move per the instructions at WP:RM#Requesting multiple page moves. You can place the following template at Talk:Zong to start the discussion (of course after editing with your rationale for the move). older ≠ wiser 17:12, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

==Requested moves==
{{subst:requested move
| new1 = Zong (disambiguation)
| current2 = ZONG
| new2 = Zong
| reason = Place here your rationale for the proposed page name change, ideally referring to applicable naming convention policies and guidelines, and providing evidence in support where appropriate. If your reasoning includes search engine results, please default to Google Books or Google News Archive before providing any web results. Do not sign this.
}}

Thank you!  SAMI  talk

The Signpost: 07 May 2014

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

PMR

Latest comment: 10 years ago9 comments2 people in discussion

Well, have you actually been to the PMR?

Because it acts completely as separate country. Moldavia proper has no presence there, and no control or influence over it. (The one time it tried, it provoked a Russian military response) PMR has it's own functional Government, Central Bank, Army (although not very large), Police, national anthem etc...

Also, according to Russian media, it is likely to join the Russian Federation within the foreseeable future. It is not "just a breakaway region". A country that is not recognized can still function as a country, and be de facto a country. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.194.205.197 (talk) 14:46, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Have you read the article? What do reliable sources have to say about it? older ≠ wiser 15:02, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Reliable sources have to tell exactly what I have mentioned above. It's a separate entity, independent completely. The fact that most people in PMR need a Russian passport to travel abroad is a formality, because they can only obtain it after getting a PMR passport. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.194.205.197 (talk) 09:23, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

If you have reliable sources that say Transnistria is an independent country recognized by more than a handful of other countries, then please edit the article to reflect this. As it is, the reliably sourced statements in the article indicate most of the world does not recognize Transnistria as a country. older ≠ wiser 23:32, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

That is not necessary in the definition of a country. It is better to look at the real world, than what a few figureheads in an office wrote on a piece of paper. If you think that the PMR is not a country, please explain why. As it has every institute that constitutes a country. Being recognized by the UN does not immediately rule out that you are a country. The PMR is independent de facto, and this can not be ignored. No statement has been made from "most of the world" that they recognize the PMR or not. (Most of the world does not even know that it exists, to be fair)

No, it is certainly necessary. Disambiguation pages cannot make assertions that are not supported by the linked articles. older ≠ wiser 01:27, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

No it is certaninly not necessary. Example: Dmitry Rogozin visited the PMR separately from Moldova. Unless Wikipedia wants to look stupid in yet another article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.194.205.197 (talk) 13:22, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

You don't understand. Whatever description is provided on the disambiguation page MUST be supported by the linked article. If the article on Transnistria does not describe it as a country, the disambiguation page cannot. Period. older ≠ wiser 22:13, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Well done, that's a way to make a disambiguation page useless. It'd be nice if the article on PMR was not so difficult to find and well hidden amongst lots of other rubbish, but the amount of needless bureaucracy on this website makes something so simple as that impossible. If there are people who don't know anything about a subject (i.e. people who claim PMR is not a country), then they should refrain from writing about such topics. Either way, I don't care anymore, I have already noticed how often simple, but useful things cannot possibly be done here. It would be great if typing "PMR" would simply redirect the user to the article about that country, because essentially nobody ever writes out it's full name. "Other" is a really "great" description for a country, for sure, yeah. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.194.205.197 (talk) 10:44, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

The claim that it is a country should be supported by the article. If the article doesn't claim it is a country, then the disambiguation page cannot. What you think you know to be the "truth" is irrelevant. older ≠ wiser 11:36, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Pascal (surname), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Stranger than Fiction (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:49, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 May 2014

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Pico Electronics

Latest comment: 10 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Pico Electronics, an electronics manufacturer in Japan
Pico Electronics, a power electronics manufacturer in United Kingdom

Would it have been acceptable to place the entries without the red links? I was looking for the second Pico Electronics above (co-developer of the first integrated microcontroller) on Wikipedia, found it mentioned but no article of its own. When I can't find the information I want on Wikipedia and have to find it myself elsewhere, I try to contribute my findings. Within their areas, both of these are important manufactures, but the UK one is important in military, avionic, custom and other low volume high reliability products. Present mentions of Pico Electronics fail to disambiguate which one of the number of companies with that name is meant. IveGoneAway (talk) 22:49, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

The problem is that disambiguation pages are navigational aides to help find existing articles. As such, each entry has to link to an article about the subject or that at least mentions the subject. older ≠ wiser 23:35, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
So, a problem I have sometimes run into in Wikipedia is mistakes due to ambiguity between subjects that have a lot of similarity but are never the less distinct subjects, case in point, contemporary businesses that are in the same field and have the same name, but have no other connection. Error arises when a reader or editor is unaware of the ambiguity, e.g., unaware what an article says about a subject is not correct for the subject they think the article is about. Presently, some one looking for Pico Electronics in Wikipedia has no indication within Wikipedia there that is more than one.
My edit was based on example. I have seen the problem addressed in disambiguation lists with either bold entries in cases where no article exists or probably should never exist; or red links in cases where no article exists but should exist. (I have read the Disambiguation style guide)
I suppose now that the pro forma solution would be to make a stub article for every Pico Electronics; the problem is while Pico Electronics (UK) is notable, I don’t know if Pico Electronics (Japan) is. IveGoneAway (talk) 23:20, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

May 2014

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

  Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Leader (disambiguation) may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • * [[LEADER programme], European Network for Rural Development method

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 00:05, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Auburn Middle School (Disambiguation), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Auburn Middle School (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:52, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 21 May 2014

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Manhattan

Latest comment: 10 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

What was the problem with this edit? Proxima Centauri (talk) 10:53, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Entries on disambiguation pages should have only one blue link. older ≠ wiser 12:56, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
That's a rule which makes sense for most entries on a dab page to focus on the relevant link. But in this case, and in general when we're talking about the top/primary topic line, does it make sense? After all, the key topic (here, Manhattan) is in bold blue, and so the focus is still on it even if another reference on the line (like New York City) is also blue, since the secondary reference is not bold. --В²C ☎ 14:29, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
Eh, that might be plausible if the edit added a link ONLY for NYC and mentioned something in the edit summary about how some people might use the term "Manhattan" to refer to NYC in general. But there's absolutely no good reason to link to the several other terms as in that edit. older ≠ wiser 12:16, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
This risks becoming an edit war. Proxima Centauri (talk) 16:38, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
Right, so perhaps after you've been bold and then were reverted, perhaps you should not revert again until discussion is conclusive (which is is not, despite your suggestion in the edit summary). older ≠ wiser 17:55, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Kellogg's Cereal City USA

Latest comment: 10 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

G'day mate. You started a move discussion I've now participated in and I happened to click through to your user page where I noticed that Kellogg's Cereal City was red-linked in your to-do list. I had no idea what that was but it sounded interesting so I googled it. I ended up collecting enough info to start a little stub at Kellogg's Cereal City USA. So I hope you don't mind my stealing something from your list and it'd be great if you have more to contribute there. For the record, I would have paid by $7.95 to visit! Stalwart111 07:15, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

No problem at all. I haven't really kept up with that list. The new article looks to be quite a good start. older ≠ wiser 23:13, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
  No worries. Not sure if you're a native of the area but if you know anyone who might have a photo we could use, that would be great. It looks to have been big and colourful and black and white text doesn't really do it justice. Stalwart111 10:24, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 May 2014

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Move request...

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This has now been closed with a merge result. Do you want to do the merging and redirecting? Happy to help if you don't have time. Cheers, St★lwart111 11:27, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 04 June 2014

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

June 2014

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

  Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Cut-throat may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • *[Cut-throat finch]], a common species of estrildid finch found in Africa

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 23:56, 11 June 2014 (UTC)


  Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to AF may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • * Across flats (A/F), a [[[[Nut (hardware)#Standard metric hex nuts sizes|measure of hexagonal nut flat size]]

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 02:52, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 June 2014

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The Signpost: 18 June 2014

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Why did you blank My article?

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hey BKonrad

I was making an article of My favorite Movie the resistance

I have look for That Movie on Wikipedia hut i see no article on it, when i type the title name i see 2 different Movie With same title, but none of them is My favorite Movie so there is 3 movies With same title

And since i Could not find any article about this here in Wikipedia so i made one myself for this Movie

Soo What i did was give the same info of the film That was allready written in the Imdb page and i even have the Link To the imdb page

But now when i open the page its blanketter for copyrights investigation and i saw you were the last one who edited the page

My question is why?

Why is My article blanked til the copyrights investigation is complete?

Is this normal for all Movie articles?

This Movie has been out i. The marketing for 3 years and have been in Cannes film festival 2012

It deserve To be on an article on Wikipedia

Meiyumi — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meiyumi (talk • contribs) 11:50, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 June 2014

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

VFB

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Nevermind, someone else stepped in and resolved the issue nicely. Thank you. DarthBinky (talk) 14:03, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bkonrad/Archive_62&oldid=1082522496"