This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Disruptive editing on Syrian corrective revolution
To quote Raymond Hinnebusch, the author of Syria: Revolution from Above, "At the 1971 Eleventh National Congress, Asad led an ideological and policy revision. He insisted that the regime had no intention of changing the “nationalist socialist line” and characterised his coup as a “corrective movement” within the revolution which would merely restore it to the true path." --TIAYN (talk) 11:46, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that you may be using administrative tools while involved in a content dispute here. Please bring an uninvolved administrator in if you feel full page protection is actually necessary. I really doubt it is. This is not the way to resolve content disputes... Carrite (talk) 19:01, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not involved in the content dispute. The dispute so far is between Greyshark09 and Trust Is All You Need. I am the uninvolved administrator trying to get them to use the appropriate Talk pages and Dispute Resolution processes. -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:43, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How are you helping use to discuss, when you take his side all the f***ing time, you blocked the article, you reverted the article into its unsourced state, and you havn't even bothered to tell me whats wrong with the article, when I've asked you numerous of times. If you're not even able to tell me whats wrong with the article, either you're who doesn't bother or you are taking sides. Reopen the page, and if Greyshark09 really think I'm doing something bad, then you should tell him to open a discussion with me(not you).. Reopen the fucking article. --TIAYN (talk) 06:01, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I helped by pointing you to the correct behavior (discussing the changes on the Talk page). But you didn't use it. I reverted the article to its previous state, which is how this works. I don't know what's wrong with the article, I only know what's wrong with your editing approach. Use the talk page or the dispute resolution process. -- JHunterJ (talk) 10:21, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Unblock the page, and really, the article "Single-party state" is a list, not an article, list and articles are to very separate things. --TIAYN (talk) 08:46, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I came across your, umm, let's be honest, flame war about "non-notable" subjects in a DAB page from a month or two ago. I have to say, it was intuitively obvious to me that the whole goal of WP:D is to make article hunting easy for users, even where that gently dents other WP rules. Unfortunately, a lot of people don't seem to get that, and since WP:D is more about process than understanding, they never will. For the second time this week, I have to paraphrase a teacher friend of mine: If you tell them what to do, some of them will do that some of the time; if you get them to understand what they're working on, most of them will do it most of the time. Perhaps the broader goals of DAB need to be stated explicitly in the introduction. Then we can have fun edit warring over that, too.
On to other ideas.
Unlinked entries: I've been kicking this around a while, and it is sure to be controversial at the least, stupid at worst. There are some DAB entries whose links are really tangential, and only there because WP:D only allows either a blue link, or a red link if the article has good shot at getting created. For subjects where there's no chance (e.g., no good refs for notability, BLP where sources are mostly unreliable), then there's no article, they can't go in period, because there's no allowance. So, sometime someone will find a way to link a description, but its awkward, and if there's no way to link a description, then you can't put it in the DAB. But it still leads to user confusion, if they think they've found their subject when the DAB comes up. What do you think about making an allowance for it in some way, so long as the subject is somewhat notable, and doesn't cause clutter.
Expanded introductions: Some DABs just cry out for a sentence or two at the top beyond the standard "XYZ may refer to." We already have an allowance for the wiktionary link, since that helps clarify the subject. But what if it is an unfamiliar term that doesn't belong in wiktionary, e.g., a concept in science? Or, where there are many variants of a term, but they are all closely related, and bear clarifying once for the whole DAB? Example (and my personal bugaboo): Glass-Steagall. All the main articles are about legislation written by Glass and Steagall or in response to that legislation, but many of them are titled without Glass-Steagall in the name. If not for the commonality, each entry have been written up as:
Banking Act of 1935, contributed to by Glass, intending to modify the 1933 act
But we don't want to repeat that explanation over and over. Ideally, we just define something like that in the introductory line, which makes the page cleaner. "Glass-Steagall refers to various United States Federal legislation sponsored by Senator Carter Glass and Representative Henry Steagall, along with laws or other activities formed in response. This includes:" followed by a bullet list of the five articles
1932 Banking Act
1933 Banking Act
Specific portions of the 1933 act that limit the financial industry; these are the most commonly referred to Glass-Steagall legislation
1935 Banking Act failed provisions introduced by Glass
Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act that repealed the Glass-Steagall controls.
As things stand now, we either have three unappealing choices: 1) break the rules and do this where it makes sense, at the near-certain risk of bludgeoning by consensus of please read WP:D; or 2) awkwardly repeat the explanation in multiple entries on the page; or 3) leave out any mention of Glass-Steagall in the DAB listing for those entries, resulting in less-awkward phrasing, but more awkward user experience of "what does this have to do with Glass-Steagall?!" This really only comes up when the association between a page name and a number of its entries is unclear. WP:D doesn't explicitly say you can't have a longer or more cerebral intro, but it ties intro very closely to the inflexible standard format. There's a good reason for that -- DABs are not articles. But the way it is now leaves no room to maneuver when you need something up there.
Hmm, above took longer than I thought to explain, which often means I'm either tired and dissembling essays, or the idea was bad to begin with. But these two have been bothering me for a while, and I wanted not-so-public input before I tried to develop them. If I'm barking up a hanukah bush, just tell me so. Dovid (talk) 17:45, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
0. I agree, and I've thought about writing that essay about the "why" of disambiguation pages, to complement our extensive coverage of "how".
1. Lists of unlinked entries can't go into a dab page, because of those "whys". There's no Wikipedia ambiguity, and putting them in a dab page would circumvent some of the checks we have on content. If the subject is truly at least somewhat notable, then there is an article it can be mentioned on, or it can survive as a stub.
2. Same thing. If the concept needs content coverage, the coverage needs to be in an article, not a non-article dab. List of Glass-Steagall legislation, for example -- and Glass-Stegall could even redirect to it as the primary topic. A dab might not be needed in that case. The maneuver room comes in better use of the article space, I think.
I can see the point of (1), but not of (2). I could probably make a stronger argument by getting a list of DABs where this would matter, and demonstrate how much better they can be with this change, and that there are no real alternatives for this sort of improvement. DAB is primarily context and user access, and we're forcing users to possibly follow many links to figure out the context of the DAB they are in. You are only pointing out that articles can clarify by themselves. Yes they can. But that has the potential to greatly increase the workload just to be able to figure out what you are looking at in the DAB. "If you don't know what this term is about, please read all the articles, or at least a few of them." Upside: Works more like a paper reference, with the thrill of the accidental find. Downside: Obvious, per above. Plus, I guess the potential for abuse, without a strict policy limiting how far you can go.Dovid (talk) 03:55, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Flying Buffalo was kept (no surprise there) but if you get back up and running, Loomis could use some more sources. BOZ (talk) 03:30, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, JHunterJ – after the AFD for Loomis was Kept, and in fact a little bit improved for the experience, Flying Buffalo was improved even more and Kept as well.
I don't know if your database is back up and running, but if you have the time to get back to helping me reduce the number of notability and BLPrefimprove templates on RPG-related BLPs, I have added more to your page; it seems like quite a few were added recently. If you're not ready, then no hurry. Hope all is well with you otherwise! :) BOZ (talk) 19:42, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Greyshark09 has accused me of bad behavior at the Administrators noticeboard, accusing me of being, well bad in general.. I think you should take a look, since you started this conflict. Anyhow, best wishes. --TIAYN (talk) 20:54, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You blocked the article and reverted the changes I've made (not because they were wrong, but since you took Greyshark09 side). You started this stalemate. You may see this differently, but you may understand that from my position that is hard, seeing that was not the best way to solve the conflict, it was the easiest way, for you. --TIAYN (talk) 21:23, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that your position is hard because you would not take the easier paths to dispute resolution, yes. Those easier paths were better ways to solve the conflict, agreed. I took the "side" of the state of the article prior to the edits from either of you. -- JHunterJ (talk) 21:25, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We are discussing, see the talk page of the 1970 Syrian Corrective Revolution, but generally you don't need to ask another user to be allowed to improve the article.. Greyshark09 views have nothing to do with factual accuracy, for instance, in his mind Corrective Movement and Corrective Revolution are two different things... But I've gone all over this before, please enter the discussions at the 1970 Syrian Corrective Revolution, but if you think I'm going to defend my views against a guy who doesn't know what he's talking about, you're mistaken. It seems irrational. --TIAYN (talk) 07:20, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
its a strange thing, I'm trying to discuss with Greyshark09 on how to improve the article (since he is the only person who has anything against my edits, and then you block my edits, which you say, on the article's talk page, you agreed upon).But okay, you're saying i'm should give on creating a consensus, and have this article permanent blocked (which is what is going to happen, if you keep on killing the discussions.. I've asked kindly for Greyshark09 to come up with sources which opposes the fact that the Corrective Revolution/Movement was a coup (which it is not, but which is included in the article...) and a reform program, but then you come and block the article, and revert changes which follows the consensus at the talk page (I don't want any coup information there, but there is, and I've added the reform program).. So tell, in worths, clearly, in one sentence, how I'm breaking the consensus. If its anyone who is breaking the consensus it is Greyshark09 and you're meddling. Everytime that article is unblocked, I will revert you're changes, since both of you have failed to explain how my edits is against consensus. Until then, this article will be in permanent lockdown. --TIAYN (talk) 21:49, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The only discussion I see on the talk page is the move discussion. There hasn't been any separate discussion on the content improvements you'd like to make that Greyshark09 objected to. But I am surprised: you acknowledge that your plan is to continue the disruptive editing approach (reverting to your bold changes without discussion) each time that the article is unprotected? -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:54, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Look at Greyshark09's talk page.. He is not responding, is he? He is the only who has said he opposes my changes so why open a discussion on the Corrective Revolution talk page? Look at his user talk page. I'm acknowledging that I want that article to factual and improved, and as it is now, it is a mess, a factual mess, which doesn't say crap. That's what I'm saying. --TIAYN (talk) 12:23, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Use the article talk page, not the user talk page. You use it because you don't own the page and he doesn't own the page, and that's what it's there for. -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:58, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How can I use the article talk page when I don't even know what's wrong with my edits, you and him for some reason aren't willing to tell me whats wrong with my changes. SO TELL Me whats is wrong with my changes? and then I can start a discussion. --TIAYN (talk) 08:31, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The same way you use this talk page and (it seems) Greyshark09's talk page: Edit it and post your proposal and/or questions about its alleged problems. E.g., "SO TELL Me whats is wrong with my changes?", only on that page instead of this one. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:15, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Again
Well, i understand you have already seen the disruptive editing on the 1970 Syrian Corrective Revolution page; I would like to draw your attention to the new rename proposal of TIAYN, where he changed the target of rename from "Corrective Movement" to "Corrective Movement or Corrective Movement (Syria)" [2] during the vote. I have rarely seen such disruptions of voting procedures on wikipedia (he did the target alteration after some users had already expressed opinions), and furthermore it makes the target weasel (we cannot rename article to "X" or "Y" at the same time).GreyShark (dibra) 21:36, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
While I want you to read my above post, I'll comment here too.. Are you saying Greyshark09 is following consensus? If you are, you have to explain how, since he does not want to reply to any messages I leave him, and tries to accuse me instead, all the time, of doing something bad.. Instead of "hiding", solve the crisis you created, its you're duty as an administrator. --TIAYN (talk) 21:52, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi JHunterJ, Just wondering why you disagree with my bold move of Diego Suarez to Diego Suarez (garden designer)? Typing the phrase in Google search of Google books seems to overwhelmingly suggest the Madagascar city is more prominent than the garden designer, hence a it merits equal status on a disambiguation page at the very least. I'll go through an RM if you insist on it, but it seems a bit of a no-brainer to me. Thanks! — Amakuru (talk) 16:06, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, thanks for the answer. I agree that I should have somehow seen that the disambiguation page ended up in the correct place, and I apologise for not doing that at the time. However, I don't entirely agree about needing to go through RM (assuming you mean the fully fledged move request procedure) - this seems like a lot of bureaucracy for something which I have deemed to be uncontroversial. WP:RM has a procedure for this, mentioned near the top of that page, namely to either list it as a technical request, or to mark the primary topic (redirect) page for speedy deletion using db-move. I guess I'm just curious whether you really needed to undo the whole move in order to clear up this WP:MALPLACED, rather than simply completing the move of the disambiguation page to the primary topic. As I said, if you think it's controversial in some way then that's fine, I'm happy to send it through RM, but if you don't think it's controversial then probably easier just to push the thing to its conclusion. Thanks — Amakuru (talk) 18:56, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Even a full fledged RM is not a lot of bureaucracy. But I've no objection to you listing it for as a technical request either. -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:28, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Cernat
Hi, I'd like to hear your opinion on something. There are about eight entities in/from Romania called Cernat: a couple of places, a couple of people, and a couple of rivers. I think they all fit neatly like this. Another user insists on having Cernat River and Cernat (surname). Both are, in my view, unnecessary. In spite of the pictures and the fake references (a search result is not a valid reference), it's not actually a common name or one covered by sources. Anyway, I think you can see what I'm driving at: the two smaller pages should be redirected and the one Cernat page should cover all relevant terms. But since you're more experienced in the area of disambiguation pages, perhaps you have something to add. Thanks. - BiruitorulTalk21:50, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Can I please ask why you changed my edit? There several other articles that use High School USA title, the way I had it setup it when to a disambiguation page which is appropriate. A response would be appreciated. TheGoofyGolfer (talk) 02:43, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your concern with the previous version of Nettle (disambiguation), but the way you changed it was not in accord with the consensus reached in the past.
I hope that you are happier with the current version (which is modelled on a number of disambiguation pages that have corresponding "List of plants known as ..." pages, such as Lotus).
Great, thanks. Just one question: I notice that you replaced my explicit use of [[List of plants known as nettle]] with [[List of plants known as nettle|Nettle]]. I agree that the latter looks nicer, but isn't it against WP:DABPIPE? It doesn't seem to me to be covered by the exceptions given. However, I still find the guidance on the format of DAB pages difficult to understand, so I may have misunderstood. Peter coxhead (talk) 12:14, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I replaced it with a link to the redirect, not a piped link. The intro for "XXX (disambiguation)" typically uses '''[[XXX]]''' is blah blah blah, even when [[XXX]] is a redirect. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:04, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Whoops, sorry, my mistake. However, it still doesn't seem to be consistent with how I understand this part of WP:DABPIPE: "Subject to certain exceptions as listed below, piping or redirects should not be used in disambiguation pages. This is to make it clear to the reader which article is being suggested, so that the reader remains in control of the choice of article." Please note again that I prefer the page the way you left it; I only explicitly showed the wikilink List of plants known as nettle because I thought that this was required by the guidelines. I'm trying to understand this area of Wikipedia clearly so we can write some guidance on the use of DAB pages and SIAs for the WP:PLANTS project pages, so I welcome your assistance. Peter coxhead (talk) 13:39, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WP:DABPIPE could stand to be clarified, but making any changes to it usually generates enough intra-project drama that it gets reverted. But further up the page, in WP:DABPRIMARY, there's the guidance "When the ambiguous term has a primary topic but that article has a different title (so that the term is the title of a redirect), the primary topic line normally uses the redirect to link to that article". And I'd be happy to help contribute to the guidance where I can. Cheers! -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:17, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
After a couple of readings, yes, I see that the bit you quote covers this case – which is good because it's sensible. But it's not consistent with the text at WP:DABPIPE. However, as a veteran of some acrimonious MOS discussions, I do understand that trying to get clarification may not be worthwhile.
I hereby award you this special barnstar for this edit, clearing up a factual error with a well cited, well written and timely addition to the article after a key error was pointed out in popular culture. Thank you for your diligence and quick work to make Wikipedia more reliable. Nutiketaiel (talk) 16:06, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Would you just move the damn article? Or at least quit screwing it up and let someone else do it. A routine move shouldn't require three months of debate without an opponent. — kwami (talk) 21:15, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Would you just list the damn article as a technical move request? Or at least quit screwing it up. What three months of debate are you talking about? -- JHunterJ (talk)
The months it can take to get a routine move accomplished at RM if there's so little interest in the article that no-one has an opinion and we need to extend the proposal to make sure there's consensus. — kwami (talk) 21:23, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So we're opting for immediate problems with the title rather than risking the hypothetical problems? Listing it as a technical request there (not a full RM) avoids the problem with extensions. -- JHunterJ (talk) 21:25, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There is no immediate problem! It's a simple move which you could have done at any time with a lot less effort than we've already spent.
Last time I had a problem w bureaucratic nonsense like this I was told the solution was to use {{db-move}}. Now I find that won't work either, because why not involve lots of people and time in something that could be done easily? I suppose no-one here has anything better to do? — kwami (talk) 21:37, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The title Purum language () and then the other nonsensical titles were the immediate problem. I suppose you have nothing better to do than move things to nonsensical titles either? {{db-move}} will work fine, and does not require the nonsensical title moves to work. -- JHunterJ (talk) 22:04, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Sins of the Father may have broken the syntax by modifying 4 "[]"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:
* "The Sins of the Father", an [[[[Merlin (series 2)#Episodes|episode or ''Merlin'']]
* "The Sins of the Fathers", an [[[[List of Spider-Man (1994 TV series) episodes#Season 3: The Sins of the Fathers (1996)|episode of
Hey J, I had something cool I wanted to show you. This isn't any kind of a request for you to do anything with any of these, but you are certainly more than welcome to take a look to see what you can do if you please - I just wanted to show you a little project that I started for myself. I restored all of these from one kind of limbo or another; most were deleted through CSD, PROD, or even a few at AFD; some were previously redirected articles or even just empty redirects. I have sourced most of them to Shannon Appelcline's "Designers & Dragons", a source from which I have gotten quite a bit of mileage for RPG articles, and have yet to do a lot more work with. :)
There are more (I wound up restoring about 2/3 of the deleted bios that I found), and I am hoping that the current draft space proposal at the VPP results in something worthwhile where I can starting working on some of those! BOZ (talk) 20:37, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I meant to mention this one to you earlier. I noticed that WikiProject Role-playing games didn't have an article alerts page(!) so I requested one, and we now have Wikipedia:WikiProject Role-playing games/Article alerts. If you are interested in deletion of such articles, watchlisting the article alerts page I have linked to will allow you to personally keep track of these processes as it relates to RPG articles. BOZ (talk) 20:38, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Each dab entry includes only one blue link, the link to the article that the reader may have been seeking when they entered "Anna" (in this case). So we link only Anna (Disney), to provide the reader efficient navigational aid. See also MOS:DABENTRY. Cheers! -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:59, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
. The racial makeup of the county was 50.03% [[Race (United States Census)|White]], 48.69% Black]] or [[Race (United States Census)|African American]], 0.19% [[Race (United States Census)|Native
Why have you made controversial and contentious moves of UK Parliament constituency articles without prior discussion? There has been almost universal acceptance that all UK constituencies have the same format of article names, which you have ignored. Why?
As noted, the broad consensus WP:PRECISION indicates that we do not use parenthetical qualifiers on articles that do not need them, so there is nothing like universal acceptance for that format. If there is a local consensus that appears to contradict the broader consensus, see WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:29, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Also, nothing has been disrupted by the moves I made. I also updated the templates that link to them. Can you point me to where the UK constituencies project members have convinced the broader community that WP:PRECISION does not apply within its scope? -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:16, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
((Doktorbuk on mobile)) - You have no knowledge of the project so should leave well alone. The project has dealt with this in the past, keeping "UK Parliament constituency" on every page retains a clear relationship across all pages and ensures that editors and readers know which articles deal with local authorities and which deal with seats. I will deal with this later - you can't get away with this vandalism 82.34.3.211 (talk) 16:15, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have a lot of knowledge of the Wikipedia project. Please do not misuse the terms "vandalism" and "disruptive", since nothing has been vandalized or disrupted. I am happy to hear that the project has dealt with this in the past. If you have dealt with it appropriately in the past, please point me to where the project members have discussed how WP:PRECISION does not apply within its scope, per WP:PRECISION and WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. Otherwise, of course, you are free to revert the moves, but I won't be reverting them, since that would be contrary to the broader consensus WP:PRECISION. Thanks. -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:38, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You have no knowledge of the specific UK politics project. Your unilateral messing about has broken the system by which all UK constituencies, old and current, have one single constant naming format. Such conventions are built up to assist visitors understand when they're looking at a constituency or not. WP:PRECISION is meaningless. Revert the changes, or I take this further. And I will win, because sense and reason out votes vandalism. doktorbwordsdeeds23:18, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You are right about my lack of familiarity with the UK politics project; that's why I'm asking you for the link to the discussion where the UK politics project brought the issue up with the broader community so that those of us familiar with the broader consensus would be able to account for the myriad sub projects where there's consensus to diverge from the broader policies and guidelines. No system has been broken, although an unnecessary consistency has been diverged from. Parenthetical phrases in the title are not where the visitors learn that they're looking at a constituency, film, author, or lunar crater; that's for the lead paragraph. If it is a truly necessary part of the title, the parentheses should not be used. I do not think you'll get far with the claim that WP:PRECISION is meaningless, but that's exactly the approach that WP:LOCALCONSENSUS means to correct. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:58, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
RPG bios draft pages
Hey JHunterJ, hope all is well with you. :) I have been hard at work on bios of RPG industry people, restoring deleted ones, sourcing existing ones, and starting new ones. Please take a look at what I have been doing with the new draft pages feature - any help you can give there may push these closing to being articles once more. :) BOZ (talk) 20:57, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Was just letting you know in case there is anything you can add - if not, no big deal as in theory these can remain as-is for as long as is necessary. :) BOZ (talk) 04:22, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
On a somewhat related topic, I have seen a few IP editors posting that Anthony J. Bryant has passed away, but the best I have seen so far is Facebook posts and forums as sources. Can you help me keep an eye on this one, and if possible add any better sources to this one in case what they are saying is true? BOZ (talk) 15:17, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merry Christmas!
BOZ (talk) is wishing you a MerryChristmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!
Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:Flaming/MC2008}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
I'm wishing you a Merry Christmas, because that is what I celebrate. If you don't like Christmas or just don't celebrate it in any of its forms, then please accept a generic "Happy Holidays". If you celebrate no holidays at this time of year, then hopefully you will be satisfied with an even more generic "Season's Greetings". :)
I was careful when moving them -- I checked that there was no article at the base name nor any other extant article of the same name with a different qualifier. You should instead ask the editors who created the qualified title article without creating the base name redirect or disambiguation page to be careful -- knowledge of the NRHP is not necessary to arrange the pages that actually exist on Wikipedia. -- JHunterJ (talk) 02:58, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Then I have no more objections, except asking that you run a quick check of the NR database via this database mirror; just type in the name to see whether the database returns more than one place. Most of the disambiguation pages were created by someone who's been topicbanned from NRHP; I've not been particularly involved in watching those. Nyttend (talk) 03:24, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia doesn't disambiguate or qualify based on the NR database. As I said, knowledge of the NRHP is not necessary to arrange the pages that actually exist on Wikipedia -- it's only necessary to look at the pages (articles, redirects, dabs) that exist, and arrange them correctly. They can be rearranged as more pages are created. The moves I made improved Wikipedia from the state before the moves, and the moves and dab creations you followed them up with further improved it, and the dab clean ups I did further improved it. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:56, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merry Christmas, too, Widefox. I have no opinion on the change of target for Strangelove. Anecdotally, I have never heard the film referred to as "Strangelove", so I would leave it pointing to the dab, but anecdotes are lousy arguments if you want to boldly change it. Cheers! -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:11, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
