User talk:MfortyoneA

MfortyoneA, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Teahouse logo

Hi MfortyoneA! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Cordless Larry (talk).

Visit the Teahouse
We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:04, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of Ancient tree for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Ancient tree 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 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ancient tree until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. TheMagikCow (talk) 21:02, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please slow down

Hi! Your work here is needed and appreciated, but you need to go more slowly and learn more about editing before you charge into making whole new articles or dab pages. Since I specialize in disambiguation pages, that's where I've run across your edits the most. Please carefully read WP:DAB and MOS:DAB before trying again to make new dab pages. Right now, your eagerness is creating messes that other editors have to clean up. Thanks. — Gorthian (talk) 02:21, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was going more on examples for guidance, I saw this Precipitation (disambiguation) which did seem to indicate several related options were valid. The reason I put them was: i think there's also a guideline that a DAB should be more than 2 entries. Is that generally less important? I would rather see a 2 item DAB than one of the pages assumed to be 'the main use'.. because they dont alert people to ambiguity when linked. My concern was to ensure that cloud system would never be an erroneous redirect ... and if I just made something with 2 entries, someone else would come along and say "sorry we dont want DABs for just 2 options" MfortyoneA (talk) 02:32, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Load bearing

This is an adjective and a partial-title match, which are strongly discouraged on dab pages. The term "load bearing" cannot substitute for any of the article names you have listed. It's better as a redirect, but it probably should be deleted outright.

It looks as if you still haven't read MOS:DAB or WP:DAB. Please hold off on making more dab pages until you understand them better. — Gorthian (talk) 01:10, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

then what do we do here? Surely load bearing going to load-bearing wall is far too specific, whilst conversely wikipedia should have somewhere to point at for load bearing. I have assembled some information into one place that can help us improve this. It would surely be wrong to point it at a "structural engineering" article because it's also got uses in personal gear; Could it be a simple glossary definition somewhere? MfortyoneA (talk) 01:13, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's basically a WP:DICDEF and not suitable for an encyclopedic article. It is a term that describes something else. Would someone really get confused between "load-bearing arch" and "Modular Lightweight Load-carrying Equipment"? Dab pages are about words that get confused with one another, not about what they mean. An example is "Mercury", which by itself can mean an element, a mythical god, a planet, a car, etc. "Mercury thermometer" is not going to be confused with "mercury". Do you see what I mean? — Gorthian (talk) 01:27, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
ok I see what you mean and I remember reading somewhere 'its not a search index', i can see here what I'm trying to do is encode a search index. Is there a 'valid'way to do that within the wikipedia rules. MfortyoneA (talk) 01:33, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The problem (IMO) is a simple term like load bearing is easily mis-linked; at least if there is a DAB, it will assist people in finding the right link eventually. Yet it seems like there should be a way, somehow, to encode in wikipedia: "what is load bearing?" (what is the common meaning between load-bearing gear and load-bearing wall, load-bearing capacity (soil), and in turn the ability to find those) MfortyoneA (talk) 01:22, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What you're talking about is an article about "load bearing", not a dab page. — Gorthian (talk) 01:28, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think that people shouldn't be linking to "load bearing" at all. Presumably, the adjective is followed by a noun in an article, so they should be linking to load bearing xxxx and not load bearing xxxx.— Gorthian (talk) 01:32, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
i did just go and change the one place that I found it "blah blah walls with blah blah [ [ load bearing wall|load bearing ] ] .."MfortyoneA (talk)
I notice there is wiktionary entry, wikt:load-bearing - is it valid to redirect to a wiktionary link? (again i'm thinking it should be possible to encode *something* that prevents error - instead of leaving wikipedia in a state where an error could easily be made in future.) MfortyoneA (talk) 01:36, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
>>" Presumably, the adjective is followed by a noun in an article" .. not so in the example I found: see building material#Gypcrete. It was followed by a comma in a list of adjectives. That did infact refer to a wall, but can you see how the error happened? ... hence why it would be nice to encode something to prevent MfortyoneA (talk) 01:39, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)I can't keep up with you! :-D I was just going to say that "load bearing" could be a WP:Soft redirect to Wiktionary, using the {{Wiktionary redirect}} template. However, this is not a decision to be made unilaterally. You might bring it up on Talk:Load bearing, and if you get no response there in a few days, try redirects for discussion to get consensus on what to do with it. — Gorthian (talk) 01:42, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
ok thanks MfortyoneA (talk) 01:43, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I see further scope for ambiguity load bearing capacity, which has a page for a specific term about soil, but I've found the phrase used in relation to piles and webbing (maybe that would be another term for a wiktionary link, and maybe the soil article could be renamed) MfortyoneA (talk) 01:53, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
indeed I just found California bearing ratio which had the exact error I thought would happen. It's an article referring to load bearing capacity of soil, and it had a link to load bearing (which was 'wall') MfortyoneA (talk) 01:53, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Directional boring
added links pointing to River crossing and Excavating
Unfair Competitive Advantage
added links pointing to Industry standard and Equipment
All-purpose Lightweight Individual Carrying Equipment
added a link pointing to Load bearing
Deep foundation
added a link pointing to Docks
Grade beam
added a link pointing to Caisson
Incremental profit
added a link pointing to Profit
Metallurgical coal
added a link pointing to Industrial
Oren sharon
added a link pointing to Composing
Residency permit
added a link pointing to Machine readable
Skilled worker
added a link pointing to White-collar
ZoomEssence
added a link pointing to Powder

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:42, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Compilation album
added a link pointing to Track (music)
Glass in green buildings
added a link pointing to Natural light
Sukranagar
added a link pointing to Conservation

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:14, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation pages

Links to disambiguation pages are errors and should be corrected. The links in the notifications above from DPL bot are still not fixed. That's why you are notified. Please correct them; the tool to fix them is linked beside each notification. Thanks. — Gorthian (talk) 02:43, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

any ideas what to do about tail boom (see 'what links here). I found it as a link to 'twin boom aircraft', whilst dealing with articles on 'helicopter'. Is this another case best handled with a 'soft redirect'(wiktionary) .. it still seems a shame not to be able to describe or link this concept within wikipedia itself MfortyoneA (talk) 03:31, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Fremont Rocket
added a link pointing to Transport aircraft
Image compression
added a link pointing to Data storage
LG Optimus One
added a link pointing to Form factor
Lie group action
added a link pointing to Kernel
Maryland State Fair
added a link pointing to Street car

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:44, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Anatomical structure

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on Anatomical structure requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, images, a rephrasing of the title, a question that should have been asked at the help or reference desks, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Cahk (talk) 07:39, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Tensor processing unit
added a link pointing to CISC
Teredo navalis
added a link pointing to Velum

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:47, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Industrial capacity

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Industrial capacity requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be an unambiguous copyright infringement. This page appears to be a direct copy from http://lexicon.ft.com/Term?term=capacity. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website or image but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:13, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks; I have re-written the article using my own words, I hope this addresses the issue. MfortyoneA (talk) 19:47, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Mass-spring-damper model
added links pointing to Spring, Damper and Computer graphic
Industrial capacity
added links pointing to Capital and Human labour
Petlas
added links pointing to Industrial and Passenger car
Bidirectional current (electrical engineering)
added a link pointing to Recharging
Crimping machine
added a link pointing to Crimping
Low-power FSM synthesis
added a link pointing to Battery
Post micturition convulsion syndrome
added a link pointing to Respiration
Traffic enforcement camera
added a link pointing to Traffic regulation

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:53, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Flood pulse

Hi MfortyoneA. I see you made a small edit at Flood pulse concept. I am struggling to understand what exactly "pulse" refers to. Any help? Thanks. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 19:55, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No idea, sorry, I just made a link to 'oxygen deficiency', what I sometimes do is pick a term, then look for instances in wikipedia that could get a more specific link to it ... I was focussed on 'oxygen deficiency / hypoxia' etc when i made that link MfortyoneA (talk) 21:56, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Housing (mechanical)

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice that Housing (mechanical), a page that you created, has been tagged for deletion. This has been done under two or more of the criteria for speedy deletion, by which pages can be deleted at any time, without discussion. If the page meets any of these strictly-defined criteria, then it may soon be deleted by an administrator. The reasons it has been tagged are:

  • It is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, a rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. (See section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Wikipedia has standards for the minimum necessary information to be included in short articles; you can see these at Wikipedia:Stub. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.
  • It covers a topic on which we already have an article - wikt:housing. (See section A10 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at wikt:housing, or to discuss new information at [[Talk:wikt:housing|the article's talk page]].

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Robert McClenon (talk) 10:29, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted the page move of Housing because there was no consensus for such a move, and, per Wikipedia:Requested moves, consensus is always required before moving a page with incoming links to create a disambiguation page. bd2412 T 03:03, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Housing (mechanical) listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Housing (mechanical). Since you had some involvement with the Housing (mechanical) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:11, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Housing (disambiguation)

Hello MfortyoneA,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Housing (disambiguation) for deletion. This has been done under section G6 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an unnecessary disambiguation page.

If you feel that the page shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions.

Abishe (talk) 19:07, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Enclosure

I've submitted the technical request you failed to do. Your capricious editing may result in a batch revert and a report at WP:ANI. Please discuss. Chris Troutman (talk) 11:52, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

as promised

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Chris Troutman (talk) 12:16, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

September 2017

Information icon Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Regarding your edits to User talk:Chris troutman, please use the preview button before you save your edit; this helps you find any errors you have made, reduces edit conflicts, and prevents clogging up recent changes and the page history. Below the edit box is a Show preview button. Pressing this will show you what the article will look like without actually saving it.

The "show preview" button is right next to the "save page" button and below the edit summary field.

It is strongly recommended that you use this before saving. If you have any questions, contact the help desk for assistance. Thank you. Chris Troutman (talk) 14:18, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Information icon Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

I noticed your recent edit to User talk:Chris troutman does not have an edit summary. Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. You can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing → Tick Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary. Thanks! Chris Troutman (talk) 14:19, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

thanks

... for confirming that the article had an error. (18th century -> middle ages). this is why I like going through this process of disambiguating. Even if you don't know an area, simply refining the meaning of links can yield constructive results. That's the beauty of something like wikipedia. MfortyoneA (talk) 14:42, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stop...

Please stop the mass-linking of a specific term across several articles. Many don't seem to have any viable basis except work for work's sake and this can be considered as disruptive.Thank you!Winged Blades of GodricOn leave 16:36, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

i have been triggered by earlier interaction and am trying to illustrate how hugely ambiguous enclosure is. One unambiguously constructive result is they had to admit the lead section of enclosure was misleading (after giving me snotty replies - they had to admit, the lead section contradicted itself). Precise titles would help clear this sort of thing up, surely? MfortyoneA (talk) 16:39, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:56, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Highland Clearances

Aren't you getting a bit ahead of yourself with your edit relative to enclosures? The article name is being discussed right now. There is no decision yet. There is a risk of you leaving a terrible mess for someone to sort out. May I respectfully suggest a bit of patience (and I mention that as someone who has needed to apply that advice in the past.)ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 19:53, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ok, i kind of assumed wikipedia would have a tool for a mass search-replace: there's 2 main redirects i've used, enclosure (legal) , and enclosure of common land, admittedly some others - but basically we've gone from 100's of instances pointing at enclosure to ~10 redirects ; I get what you're saying about neither being perfect though (but they do at least separate them out). Through this process i've found at least 10 where enclosure meant something completely different (engineering, animal-enclosure, or archeological, or literal walls). r.e. the choice of 'enclosure (legal)', the main article enclosure did say , in it's first line, "enclosure is the legal process of ..." .. I was going on that. If the rename doesn't happen, i'm assuming a search-replace can fix it;also the need to do all this work might discourage others from going along with the rename MfortyoneA (talk) 19:57, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Noted, but I've learnt by experience that in the world of Wikipedia, it usually pays to go relatively slowly. Additionally, in the instance of the Highland Clearances edit, the previous text had links to take the reader to the page about Enclosure and then (if the reader chose) to the page about Common land. After your edit, the only place that the reader will be directed is to Enclosure. Hence, post edit, there is less information accessible to the reader. This might appear just to be a pedantic point, but it's exactly the sort of defect that you find in Wikipedia, and the one that got me involved in editing in the first place.
ah ok, i've reverted that. "enclosure of common land" linked separately MfortyoneA (talk) 21:44, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In terms of trying to affect people's intentions on the rename - I am no expert on this, but I believe the renaming procedure makes the old links work. You can test this by going to Enclosure (Agricultural Revolution) and seeing where you are redirected. Given that I suspect Wikipedians have a propensity not to like being manipulated, you may be working against your ambitions for the name to be changed (clearly I don't know, but it's just an idea you might want to consider.)ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 21:41, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
as far as I know my changes have kept things pointing at the same place, except where it was clearly wrong, There are a few cases where I couldn't figure out what it really meant - i pointed it to the disambiguation page, and left a note. There's basically pages on rural names etc, with place names that are related to old names for 'enclosure' , which looked to me more like 'physical enclosure', and some cases that were more obviously enclosure (archaeology) MfortyoneA (talk) 21:48, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pemrokeshire

Hi, I presume you meant well in your recent edits to Pembrokeshire, but I have reverted them as explained in my edit summaries. You seem to be fixing something that ain't broke; please don't. Thanks, Tony Holkham (Talk) 21:28, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Table fork

Hi MfortyoneA, I'm puzzled why you should think it worth while change table fork to table fork in the Thomas Coryat article. Do you think that there should be an article on table forks? Some of your other edits appear equally pointless/unnecessary: for example, the Enclosures article hasn't been renamed Enclosures (legal). Rwood128 (talk) 13:46, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

because fork is mis-linked , it's an ambiguous word. also see the discussion talk:enclosure, again it's an ambiguous word, mis-linked many times. This is a great resource of text with links; the more accurate the more value this resource has (translation hints? is machine translation perfect yet? what about search? can you make natural language queries yet? the more precise data wikipedia has encoded in it.. the better , for future capabilities) MfortyoneA (talk) 14:29, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(1) Such mislinks are simply errors. You seem – to me – to be creating "mountains out of mole hills". Why not just correct the error, including possibly removing the link? Your edits relating to computers/software on the other hand look reasonable, at least to this non-expert. Rwood128 (talk) 14:59, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I did this time, I corrected the errors, but I still want to point out this idea: if fork ( such a common word, with many contextual variations) was the dab, in future anyone tempted to link to it would be alerted, and we'd get more accurate links... the value of this resource to the world would be improved. Look at the hovercards feature.. you often get a thumbnail as you glide the cursor around (if the link is meaningful) MfortyoneA (talk) 15:08, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For your information: [https://en:Thanks. Mis-links are simply errors. .wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ryosuke_Nomura&type=revision&diff=802790270&oldid=802784155]. Rwood128 (talk) 14:11, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

thanks. I hadn't heard of it, but I suspected it wasn't a table fork. There are many examples of mis-links, that's why I've suggested a move MfortyoneA (talk) 14:36, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(2) You need to edit more carefully (slowly). You should have checked forkball. Rwood128 (talk) 14:59, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't know 'forkball' existed. I've never heard of it. You shouldn't be surprised that people are reading wikipedia who don't already know about what they're reading.. the point of it is to discover new things. All I knew for sure is: that didn't sound like a table fork. might have been something like a 'curve-ball', who knows what they come up with in sporting jargon and figures of speech. MfortyoneA (talk) 15:02, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

September 2017

Information icon Thank you for your edit to the disambiguation page Enclosure (disambiguation). However, please note that disambiguation pages are not articles; rather, they are meant to help readers find a specific article quickly and easily. From the disambiguation dos and don'ts, you should:

  • Only list articles that readers might reasonably be looking for
  • Use short sentence fragment descriptions, with no punctuation at the end
  • Use exactly one navigable link ("blue link") in each entry
    • Only add a "red link" if used in existing articles, and include a "blue link" to an appropriate article
  • Do not pipe links (unless style requires it) – keep the full title of the article visible
  • Do not insert external links or references

Please familiarise yourself with MOSDAB before doing any more edits to dab pages. Most or all the additions are WP:PTM, and in responding to the help request at the disambiguation project, I consider the easiest is to revert to the last good version. Widefox; talk 16:17, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Enclosure (disambiguation). Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

  1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
  2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.
Your edits are already being discussed at ANI, stop NOW, else you are likely to be blocked. Widefox; talk 16:31, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Information icon Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

I noticed your recent edit to Enclosure (disambiguation) does not have an edit summary. Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. You can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing → Tick Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary. [1] Widefox; talk 16:43, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Animal enclosure listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Animal enclosure. Since you had some involvement with the Animal enclosure redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Widefox; talk 18:50, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Galleried enclosure

A tag has been placed on Galleried enclosure requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G6 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an orphaned disambiguation page which either

  • disambiguates two or fewer extant Wikipedia pages and whose title ends in "(disambiguation)" (i.e., there is a primary topic); or
  • disambiguates no (zero) extant Wikipedia pages, regardless of its title.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time. Please see the disambiguation page guidelines for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Widefox; talk 19:02, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]