This is an archive of past discussions with User:ShelfSkewed. 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.
I was recently doing some minor editing to "The Walrus" page, mainly tightening sentence structure and grammar. When I went back to the page after I had done some research, I was greeted with a message from ShelfSkewed asking me to stop vandalizing the "Future" and "The Outsiders" articles. Now, I have never even been to either page, so I'm a little confused. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.67.62.51 (talk • contribs) 12:32 (UTC), 26 January 2008
I am also confused. I was adding helpful links to cultural interviews and got the same message. And yet links added by others still there! Seems to me that ShelfSkewed is the vandalizer here. Not me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.237.208.47 (talk) 12:57, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
I have no intention of writing that article, but that's not why I dabbed it. When I was fixing up the dab page I Can't Wait, I found the song ambiguously linked in the target article, Rock a Little, which all by itself means that it should have a disambiguated link on the dab page. Then I also found the song linked in three other articles, which suggested to me that at least one editor, and perhaps more, strongly felt that this song could/should eventually have an article. By leaving the link and dabbing it wherever I found it, I built a web for the article title. Red links are not bad things—they can encourage article creation and show the correct location for those future articles. But red-linking is always a judgment call. If you want to unlink the song, be my guest. --ShelfSkewedTalk13:01, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
I also had a message from ShelfSkewed that really puzzles me. I see lots of external links to interviews and I don't understand why it's inappropriate to add links to interviews with the page's subject on my radio show, Writer's Voice. They are are serious, in-depth and add to the general knowledge of a writer's work. Is there any way I can make this resource available without violating the rules? Subjects of Wikipedia write entries for the page about them -- is that seen as a conflict of interest? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Francesca Rheannon ([[User talk:Francesca Francesca Rheannon (talk) 17:01, 17 February 2008 (UTC) Rheannon|talk]] • contribs) 16:54, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Also, I am not putting links in to increase my rankings, as Shelf-Skewed seems to think. I don't need to increase my rankings. Writer's Voice is the first ranked hit on Google for "writers voice" and various permutations of that phrase. Francesca Rheannon (talk) 17:01, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
When your contributions consist exclusively of adding your own external links to articles, you are, perforce, a spammer. Whenever a mass addition of links by an editor who only adds links to the same website is noticed, it is (or should be) reverted. Wikipedia is not a mere repository of links, no matter how appropriate. It's an attempt to create a collaborative encyclopedia, the content of which is produced by continuous discussions and negotiations among contributing editors. So, please, by all means participate: Offer your links on the talk pages of the relevant articles and join the discussion.--ShelfSkewedTalk17:05, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
This is good advice...but if I don't comment on the entries of others, is it still OK to say something like (example from the current show, which I'm just using as an example, not as intention to add an edit in Wikipedia): "This interview with novelist Kevin Patterson is about his novel of the Arctic North and the Inuit, CONSUMPTION. He talks about the collision between the old and the new in that region and describes the life of the Inuit as they transition from traditional nomadic life to settlement in towns built for them by the Canadian government. The novel tells the story of one family across three generations as its members make this transition, the uneasy peace they make with modern society, and the connections and tensions between them and the Kablunuks– or whites — who come to work in the Arctic." I guess I feel that an interview link in a Wikipedia page adds to the general knowledge about a writer, whereas a "talk" entry is supposed to comment on other entries. Your objections to my entries favor the already well-known media venues but discriminates against just as worthy, lesser-known media venues. Guests on Writer's Voice consistently say it was the best interview they had about their book -- that's partly because it is in-depth, something not allowed for by most "big" radio shows.Francesca Rheannon (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 18:00, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
I've read the Wikipedia guidelines on adding links but didn't find the answers to the above question--so I'm trying to be specific, not self promoting. I'd put a smiley face here, but I'm not sure that's allowed! Francesca Rheannon (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 18:16, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
I'll admit to being a little confused by your questions, but I'll just forge ahead with my advice: The way to add your links to an article is to first propose them on that article's Talk page. For example, if you want to add a link to the article Junot Díaz, then on the page Talk:Junot Díaz you would start a new section offering your link and briefly describing (stick to facts, and stay away from PR-type prose) why you think the link would make a good addition to the article. If, after a reasonable amount of time (5 days is standard), no one has objected, then you can add the link to the article--and make sure that you mention the Talk page proposal in your edit summary so that other editors can see what you're doing. Even then, however, I can't guarantee that another editor won't remove them. Some editors take a hard-line against any conflict-of-interest additions. On the other hand, often just mentioning the link on the talk page will bring it to the attention of a regular contributor to an article and that editor will add the link for you. I know it all seems roundabout and bureaucratic, but the idea is to discourage the hit-and-run addition of external links. Otherwise every article would soon be overwhelmed by them. P.S. Smilies not only allowed but encouraged here :-) --ShelfSkewedTalk04:42, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Removed the extra links from the three. JHunterJ seems to disagree in at least one case that a second link in the intro line is excess, although I don't see any need for it unless the entry link is a redirect, but none of those are. It's certainly possible that I'm mistaken--let me know if JHunterJ has a different take on it. As far as the order on Naruto (disambiguation), yes, it also seems logical to me to have the Naruto character first, but Abtract's version also makes sense in putting at the top the entries that most closely match the dabbed term, followed by the rest alphabetically. I think I'd still favor putting Naruto Uzumaki at the top, but I don't see any reason to insist on it. --ShelfSkewedTalk19:26, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
As I said, I don't think it is important enough to fight over. If you do think it is significant, then start a conversation at Talk:Naruto (disambiguation); if consensus there is to move the character to the top, then that's what we should do. --ShelfSkewedTalk19:51, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
I noticed you partially reverted the edits I made to this page. I'm not sure why this was, because you didn't provide a summary of your reasons, but here's a rationale for mine:
The addition of Home of the Underdogs is because the word "underdog" is a partial match for a difficult-to-remember title. This was, indeed, the article I was looking for when I plugged "underdog" into Wikipedia's search.
The split of "songs" and "albums" in the music section isn't really necessary. Section headers are there to help with readability, not to strictly taxonomise lists. There are only a handful of entries in each section, so there's no real need to split them up.
Yes: WP:NC-BK#Standard disambiguation, which specifies clarifiers using last names only. My move of the Edgeworth novel was incorrect—and shame on me, because I should have known better, having done a lot of work on fiction articles. So I moved the Rice novel to match. --ShelfSkewedTalk03:49, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
I tend to troll Disambiguation pages in need of cleanup and this page happened to be flagged for clean-up earlier today. I noted the red links and was actually trying to find sources on the web so that I could at least produce a stub page for them. Aside from that, I hadn't really thought that far.--
Marchije (talk) 16:19, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Re: Good job for creating all those stubs. That's initiative above and beyond. You can't be as new to Wikipedia as your account makes it seem, can you? In any case, nice work. --ShelfSkewedTalk20:03, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
I would like to create a separate article for United States Marine Corps use of the term Leatherneck for use in redirects in main articles written about Marines. I was thinking I could move the current Leatherneck article to “Leatherneck (disambiguation)” so I could use that article title for the article currently located at User:FieldMarine/Sandbox 2. I would like your opinion on that? Thanks! FieldMarine (talk) 05:01, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
The USMC use is certainly the primary meaning of the term, and there is no other article with that exact title, so the move makes sense to me. Cheers --ShelfSkewedTalk05:09, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
The intro line as it stands in the current version of the page is in the form close to my suggestion, so you already know my opinion on that issue. As for the other issues being discussed, I'm willing to leave the debate in the hands of those like yourself who are more knowledgeable about the relevant topics. Any dab page drawing that much discussion is going to be a well thought-out and useful page whatever its ultimate form. Regards--ShelfSkewedTalk03:29, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Disambig link
Hey, thanks for fixing the link in Qandisa. As a fixer of links to disambig. pages myself, I'm a little embarrassed that I missed that one in an article I created! (And misspelled Morocco at the same time...) --BelovedFreak00:03, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Happy to help. If it makes you feel better, in a recent edit summary, attempting to spell disambig, I ended up saving diasmabig. D'oh!--ShelfSkewedTalk00:14, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Kaleidoscope
I really miss the old Kaleidoscope. I hate the Aqua interface, from the clammy blueness to the ubiquitous brushed-steel. I want some choices in the old Mac tradition. --Orange Mike | Talk20:23, 22 April 2008 (UTC) (still running a tangerine iMac at home)
In reply to the earlier version of your comments (and thank you for your kind words) I was following the example of The Nutcracker, which contains a separate section ("New choreography") discussing several notable presentations of the ballet. That is, the musical composition is treated as the primary topic and thus the primary disambiguating feature. My assumption was that the Martins version, when it was ultimately given a detailed treatment, would not have a separate article but should be included in the The Sleeping Beauty (ballet) article, in the section "Versions by other hands". Cheers --ShelfSkewedTalk16:14, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
The Last Holloween
hello. once again i restored the entry for The Last Holloween. that it is a redlink is really immaterial. the question of whether it rises to the level of significance is evidenced by its acknowledgment by the academy with an emmy award. more importantly, the alternate spelling of the title is an obvious and intentional play on words and inherently calls for disambiguation. its inclusion in this dab is permitted per MOS:DAB#Red links, and MOS:DAB#Misspellings. --emerson704:09, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
I continue to disagree. Leaving aside the linking (which is another issue) and the spelling (you might note that I have no objection to Helloween in the See also section) my objection to the inclusion of The Last Holloween is that it's not something called Halloween (or Holloween or Helloween). It's a film called The Last Holloween and it is not an ambiguous use--it's just something that happens to include the word "H(a/o)lloween", a type of entry specifically excluded in MOS:DAB. It no more belongs on the dab page than Halloween Havoc, Halloween Blizzard, Big Top Halloween, or The Paul Lynde Halloween Special. I have no intention of continuing this revert war, but the next time I edit the page for some other reason, I will remove that entry again.--ShelfSkewedTalk04:21, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, I now know that too... :-) In my defense: 1) I don't remember encountering a book article with just a surname in the title, 2) songs, for example, disambiguate with the full name of the artist. Anyway: I defer to the current naming convention, so I renamed the article back. Thanks for dropping a note. GregorB (talk) 14:56, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Chinese as a foreign language
I understand that not all external links are acceptable, but can you direct me to the rationale on why some sites need 2 links (including 1 commercial link)?
- Official site of Beijing Language and Culture University
- Official site of Beijing Language and Culture University Press A famous Chinese textbooks publisher—Preceding unsigned comment added by Gymshaw (talk • contribs)
I'm not sure exactly what you are asking. The guidelines for external links are detailed at Wikipedia:External links. Each of the institutions you mention has an article, and each has an external link to the appropriate official site. When any entity, including a commercial one, has an article it is appropriate to included a single link to the homepage of that entity's website. But the BLCU Press website is not externally linked in the BLCU article.--ShelfSkewedTalk14:28, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Good day, you previously blocked a vandal (Shven) in May. It seems the individual is back based on vandalism of at least the tradmill page. I'm wondering if you can assist? Thanks, Hu Gadarn (talk) 22:06, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Stronghold fix
Thank you for expanding on my vague, nebulous "warring faction" in the "series of computer games"... I don't play HOMM, but while editing a related article I noticed that that faction needed to be added to the Stronghold disambiguation page. When I put it there, I was hoping someone would come along and add some details.
Oh, and hey, I see you're a WikiGnome too. Rock on!--BackToThePast (talk) 04:05, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Alice Sola Kim, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.
Hi - thanks for your contribution to the article on Riff-driven songs. Some deletionist has nominated the entire article for deletion. Please see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Riff_driven and vote whether to delete or keep the article. Thank you... Geĸrίtzl (talk)
2009
Orphaned non-free media (File:Ellroy My Dark Places cover.jpg)
Thanks for uploading File:Ellroy My Dark Places cover.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:07, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Well I'm not going to get into an edit war over it, but the subject is not even notable enough for a WP article, so it's certainly not notable enough for a disambig page. I'd recommend actually writing the article that is redlink before asserting that it's "notable enough" MrShamrock (talk) 15:43, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Re: There is also an endless supply of mineral water given to those who partake, in case thirst escalates to above-average degrees. —Clarknova (talk) 02:22, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Re: Was this a test of some kind? that's what I was wondering! That or a dadist prank. From the edit log it looks pretty much impossible as an honest mistake. I was hoping to draw the meaning out of you. —Clarknova (talk) 04:45, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Oh, I'm sorry. I misread the history. That line was added by an anonymous user. It made it four days without revision. Thanks for cleaning it up, anyway. —Clarknova (talk) 04:59, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Julie Couillard
I think there are additional concerns in this particular case. She's not primarily known as a writer, for one thing — she's a political scandal figure who wrote an exposé of her role in the scandal, but has never published any other works. And she doesn't even have her own independent article at the title "Julie Couillard" — at present, her name only exists on Wikipedia as a redirect to the book. So that's why I think her full name is needed here: as things stand right now, other than the very brief mentions of her in the articles on the other figures involved in the scandal, the book's article itself is the only article we have on Wikipedia that even identifies who Couillard is. Bearcat (talk) 19:57, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Can you please cite this change, particularly the source. I don't have any of he DVD's, so can't verify. The original articles had the data you changed, and have been pretty good with a lot of detail, alas, sans cites... one reason people converted the 179 episodes articles into redirects. I wouldn't know the one song (or performer, for that fact), from the other, so if you're certain, please cite the episode. Thanks... I seem to have inherited this series lately... wanna help! // FrankB22:38, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
I wasn't looking to add that information originally; I was just disambiguating links to Hungry (song). I unlinked the song (it has no article) and then made an educated guess based on the year and the fact that Navarro's solo album released that year had a track by that name--and confirmed the guess with a Google search. The search turned up literally dozens of sites with this information, but nothing that looked like a reliable source. There is this IMDb page, although it doesn't mention the album. Or you can cite these two videos at YouTube: the video for "Hungry (Empty Girl)" and Dave Navarro performing on Charmed. Same song.--ShelfSkewedTalk23:10, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
OK, I understand... if you'd that association, then the youtube is authoritative... since its a derivative image and I can guarantee you P3 was only called "The Spot" during that single episode. So thanks. I'll just cite the DVD with the youtube backup... looks like I misread the diff in any event, misreading that you'd changed the songs name, when you'd given it's alternate or subtitle name leaving the other in place. Best regards, thanks. // FrankB23:36, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
See WP:INTDABLINK. The point being that disambiguation pages without the (disambiguation) clarifier may have many erroneous incoming links, which need to be fixed. Links coming in by way of the (disambiguation) redirect are intentional and do not need to be fixed.--ShelfSkewedTalk15:02, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, I found it. It's too bad; we introduce ugly links into the article, and add a redirect, so bots can fix other editor's mistakes. Rules is rules, I guess. — John Cardinal (talk) 15:09, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on All In All, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because All In All is a redirect to a non-existent page (CSD R1).
To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting All In All, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click hereCSDWarnBot (talk) 12:39, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi ShelfSkewed. I finally began to understand that the problem is not only the permission to reproduce title covers but the idea to grant this for a single article - the article on the respective novel. Could you help me to get this permission for the overview the article is trying to produce? --Olaf Simons (talk) 13:56, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
I don't think that that would be allowed. Fair-use restrictions on Wikipedia are strict, and copyrighted images are generally only allowed in an article discussing that specific work, and even under that circumstance, the use of excessive numbers of fair-use images is discouraged. But I am not an expert in this area. I suggest you query an editor who deals with these matters more often. One you might ask is Rettetast, whom I know has done some work in this area.--ShelfSkewedTalk14:06, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Francism
Looking at the history of Francism I think it was first created by someone who didn't know that the English word is Francoism, so the redirect is misguided and dab page should be at base name. PamD (talk) 16:54, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
That said, the other sense apart from FrancisM is actually Francisme with an E I think! Have fun. PamD (talk) 16:55, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Today
Hi
Sorry didn't reply earlier but I've been away for a week
Agree that it was an article atop a disamb page. The wictionary page is a bit vague and all over the place. Can you point me to policy regarding articles on disamb pages, or is it just a no-no ?
It's basically a no-no. The relevant guideline is the Manual of Style for disambiguation pages: "Disambiguation pages...are non-article pages, in the article namespace, similar to redirect pages." In other words, article material—and all its related baggage (images, references, external links, categories, etc.)—belongs in articles; disambiguation pages, on the other hand, are, I guess you could say, multi-directional soft redirects.
As I mentioned on the Today Talk page, if you think the material merits a separate article, one could be created. But I have changed my mind that the dab page should be moved; after cleaning out the incoming links, I think the two primary uses of the term Today are the UK radio show and the US TV show. There were very few linked uses of today meaning "now" or "this day". Instead I would leave the dab page where it is and create a new article at, perhaps, Today (time). --ShelfSkewedTalk14:54, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Hun (disambiguation)
Sorry I was just following the text on the target page; you're right I should have been more careful in this case. Thanks for making the change. --Rogerb67 (talk) 11:24, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
If I was in error, then I apologize. But I was under the impression that all television films, whatever the country of origin, were disambiguated to (film). I'm sure I've seen several British productions so designated. But if it should be done differently, then I suppose I can disambiguate to (UK TV programme)--to differentiate from the Australian & NZ news programmes. --ShelfSkewedTalk16:59, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
I understand, but disambiguation deals with the names of articles. The name of the river is ambiguous, but, because you added River, the title of the article is not, so it doesn't need a hatnote. --ShelfSkewedTalk15:41, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
No, the same thing would apply: As long as it is disambiguated somehow, and there is no chance of confusion with something similar, then it doesn't need a hatnote. In other words, if the title of the article could be used for some other article, then it needs a hatnote; if not, then not. For example, if an article were created called Touch (German river)—a completely fabricated example--then Touch River (or Touch (river))--would either need a hatnote saying This article is about the river in France. For the river in Germany, see Touch (German river), or it would need to be further dabbed to Touch (French river), and then it wouldn't need a hatnote.--ShelfSkewedTalk19:10, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Ok, thanks a lot for your explanations. Now, I have a question. Touch is just a redirect. Did I make wrong ? Wouldn't it be better to call the article relative to the river just Touch ? Alvar☮☎00:27, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
There was a discussion at Talk:Touch (disambiguation) and the participants seemed to arrive at the consensus that the page Touch should redirect where it does--that is, the primary topic for Touch is the sense of touch, which is dealt with in the article Somatosensory system. The redirect is even protected, so you couldn't use it anyway without an admin's help. I think you put the article in a good place, but if you want it to reflect the actual name of the river, you could move it to Touch (river).--ShelfSkewedTalk04:26, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
As I understtod, adding River (instead of (river)) to the name of a river is the current way to deal with disambig (at least in the rivers domain). But I wont't make any change, it's no big deal. Thanks for your explanations. Ciao. Alvar☮☎07:44, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
Go Dab
hi; i'm willing to cut the length of the wording, but several key points do stand: 1. the fact that it is played with b&w stones doesn't really belong here; there are many other characteristics of the game that are at least equally important, if not more so. 2. if the history of the game is being discussed, it is inadequate to say that it originated in china (chocolate originated in central america, but that isn't an adequate way of describing its history); the game has been played throughout east asia for more than 1000 yrs, there are variations in the rules, japanese & chinese scoring are completely different, the word "go" is a japanese name for the game, etc. if the origins are being discussed it should also not imply that the game is played only in that region, or only by people from there. 3. the game is known by a variety of names, & that variety is present in english, although i do agree that "go" is the most common english language name. open to discussion here, not looking to start an edit war. Lx 121 (talk) 15:10, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Please see my comments on the Go Talk page, and reply there. Why is any of this information necessary to help a user find the correct article? --ShelfSkewedTalk15:17, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
my understanding of the purpose of a dab is that it is supposed to provide a thumbnail def of the subjects listed. if you want to apply the rule of absolute minimums, i could trim probably another... 100 words or so off the "go" dab page. however, the evidence from pages i've seen is that some attempt at definition is permissible Lx 121 (talk) 15:39, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
"The description associated with a link should be kept to a minimum, just sufficient to allow the reader to find the correct link." There are many dab pages that are not particularly good examples of this ideal. I ask again: Why is it necessary to expand the dab page description beyond what is necessary to identify the topic?--ShelfSkewedTalk15:46, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Dance War: Bruno vs. Carrie Ann, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Marshall T. Williams (talk) 01:08, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Correctly disambiguating a link [1] is not constructive? Even a cursory examination of my contributions—not to mention of this very Talk page—should have caused you to reconsider whether you were fingering the correct contributor. Please be more careful in the future--ShelfSkewedTalk03:27, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Hello - a response to your comment on my talk page INRE: Gay anthem
I just want to take the time to thank you for taking such a strong interest in the quality of LGBT articles on WP. In the case of Gay anthem - I do believe I followed the correct policies of No Original Research and Verification when I moved questionable content to the article's discussion page for further discussion and verification rather than have un-verified and unreliable original research content presented within a Wikipedia article. I do appreciate the hard work folks put into an article - but if it is original research with no verifiable secondary source to back it up, then its inclusion on a live Wikipedia page is against the WP:NOR mandate - even if it was done in good faith. Original research is simply not allowed in this project. Perhaps via discussion on the talk board, contributors can work in concert to find a source along with additional song titles *before* they are added to the live article? I am aware that you found the manner I dealt with this to be unacceptable. Please, if you have suggestions on how I can better handle this type of issue in the future - particularly regarding the issue of original research - in a way that you would think more appropriate to the situation, I am always open to suggestions on how to work better with others. Along those lines, I have a note that may help you better get along with others: when you are trying to correct behavior you disagree with, it usually is not the best policy to insult someone by calling them "rude" on their talk page. Please refer to Wikipedia:Etiquette - How to avoid abuse of talk pages. Not everybody is as understanding or easy-going as I am. Again, thank you for sharing a passion I've had since 2003 to help ensure higher-quality LGBT articles on WP. I do hope this message was taken with the earnest spirit in which it was written. - Davodd (talk) 02:48, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your comment, ShelfSkewed. I'm not specifically against songs being on dab pages, I tend to remove any entry that does not have a Wikipedia entry and are not likely to ever have one. It looks like I've been a bit too stringent with my removals, as the MOS currently stands; I did not see the Siouxsie song on the MOS page. I still think it's a terrible idea to have songs with no articles listed on disambiguation pages, even if the album has an article. The problem is that I've never seen one of album articles ever actually discuss the songs that appear on the dab page beyond perhaps the track listing. But, you've convinced me, I will discuss the matter at the MOS page before I remove any more. Cheers,--Cúchullaint/c01:04, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
I appreciate that you'll take it under consideration; I really do think it's a burden dab pages will have to bear until a better solution comes along. I don't know jack about programming or writing templates, but I wonder if someone could create a track-listing template, like a category template, so that every song in every album article would automatically be added to a searchable database? Someday, maybe. Regards.--ShelfSkewedTalk03:31, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Re: The First Time
My apologies; I tried doing it via a proper page move, but the page already redirected back to The First Time (song). I didn't know that it's improper to do it that way, or that an admin's help was needed. Thanks for letting me know. MelicansMatkin (talk) 16:16, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Terror
I agree that dab pages are not the place for article material or extended dictionary definitions, but Terror is not a dab page. It is a standard entry that has a general definition and is used more specifically in other contexts. --Danbur (talk) 15:40, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm certainly flattered that you would ask, and I can't say I haven't thought about it. But I'm sort of on the fence. On the one hand, I think I've reached the point where I could make good, responsible use of the tools. On the other, though, I haven't involved myself much in the administrative aspects of Wikipedia, and I might not have very good answers for some of the questions admin candidates get asked. Let me think about it for a bit and let you know. Any suggestions for things I could read or become involved in to help me make my decision? --ShelfSkewedTalk15:15, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Current and recent WP:RFAs, and the stuff linked in the first paragraph of Wikipedia:Administrators#Be careful, please!. :-) I noticed in your logs that you have many page moves, and if you've encountered situations where you couldn't perform a necessary move yourself because lack of mop, that would be a reason to receive a mop (and is about all I wanted to use it for when I was nominated). But you're right, some RfA participants might expect broader experience or plans. -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:24, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
I didn't want to keep you hanging too long, so...I think on the whole that I'm happy doing what I'm doing, and I'm content to muddle along as a plain old editor. I've had 3+ years of editing without becoming active in administrative areas, and I don't want to force myself to be involved in things I'm not interested in doing, or go through an RFA grilling, just so I can have the tools. It's satisfying just to be asked by an editor/admin whose opinion I value, and I'll get back to editing with renewed energy and purpose. Cheers, and thanks!--ShelfSkewedTalk04:41, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
You edited something I did so I checked out your profile. I find the "Toolbox" in your User page very helpful! May I copy on my User page, with attribution? -The Gnome (talk) 10:51, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Absolutely--since I copied it from someone else, myself. When I first copied it, many of the links were outdated; I fixed most of them, but there are probably still one or two that need updating. Other than that, it's yours as much as it is mine, to do with as you wish. Cheers, --ShelfSkewedTalk16:12, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Hello, ShelfSkewed. Why did you remove the meaning of "On the Run" where it states that it "often refers to a fugitive or any person fleeing capture"?
I am sure that when most people think of the wording "on the run," they think of it in terms of a person fleeing capture. Thus, I feel that mention of what that phrase most often refers to should be mentioned first on that page. Flyer22 (talk) 02:02, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Looking back, I removed it because it was located in the introductory sentence, where it didn't belong since there is no primary topic (as Wikipedia defines it) for the term, and it also struck me as a simple dictionary definition. But I agree it should be re-added--as a regular entry, not in the intro sentence. I'll take care of it. Cheers!--ShelfSkewedTalk03:44, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
This doesn't make any sense to me!—Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.0.40.107 (talk • contribs) 1:40, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Only administrators (sysops) can impose blocks on other editors, and I'm not an admin. In order to get another user blocked for inappropriate behavior, an ordinary editor must request admin intervention.--ShelfSkewedTalk03:14, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Black Cat
It's me! Apparantly we're engaged in some sort of Edit War! I already got blocked because of you, and it's only a matter of time before you get blocked too! I'm calling a cease fire right now! I submitted it to IMDB, so it should be on there soon! So let's make a deal...If you stop deleting it, I'll stop adding it! Now you have to admit, that is fair! You can't beat me! So let's see if we can work something out! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.0.40.107 (talk) 04:22, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Actually, no, I won't be blocked for reverting you, because your edits--thus far, at least--are considered vandalism, and the 3-revert-rule doesn't apply to vandalism. And as long there's no Wikipedia article for the film, and no related article to link to, I'll keep deleting it.--ShelfSkewedTalk04:29, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
No! But I already told you, I only deleted the ones that weren't versions of Edgar Allan Poe! They don't belong there! You don't understand, that they don't belong there! Same title, way different storyline! Get them off of there! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.0.40.107 (talk) 19:48, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
Don't think this makes us friends! I'm still at Edit War with you! Untill my movie makes it to imdb, and I can prove to you it exists! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.0.40.107 (talk) 20:00, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks!
I didn't know that, thanks for telling me. But do I have to go back now and change every single blue link? Because that would take me an awful long time. XxTimberlakexx (talk) 13:30, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for your comment on Dana Delany's article. I'm new to Wikipedia and I think you know a lot more than me, and I was wondering about a few things, and wondering if I might seek your counsel. Like, on Dana's page, sometimes the movies are in red (meaning as you know that there's no corresponding wikipedia article) and sometimes in blue. I'm wondering what to do if the movies are in red -- should I remove the brackets but keep the italics, so there's no color for the movie other than black? Or, should I leave the red because it's a sign to other editors about possibly making a wikipedia page for that movie? Wondering what you might think. Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:33, 22 July 2009 (UTC)tomwsulcer
I had another question about the Dana Delany article. Presently there's no information about her past boyfriends or relationships. But there are sources on the web indicating different past relationships. Is this suitable material for an article? I think it's interesting and relevant but I want to get more opinions before adding something. Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:33, 22 July 2009 (UTC)tomwsulcer
Redlinks are the source of many differences of opinion, so whatever yours is is as good as anyone's. Some editors seem to absolutely avoid redlinks or remove them wherever they find them, while others add them copiously for the reason you mention: because they encourage article creation. I try to steer a middle course but tend to lean more toward the latter position, always keeping in mind that a redlink should only be used for a topic that is by definition, or at least very likely to be, notable enough to actually support an article. Feature films in general release, television programs, and many other general classes of artistic work are generally considered de facto notable, so a redlink on those is, to me anyway, perfectly acceptable. But as I said, it's a matter of opinion and judgement, so you can do what you think is best--but be willing, also, to work with other editors whose opinions differ from yours.
On the subject of personal info in the biography of a living person: Such info is certainly common and so apparently acceptable, but my advice would be to remain brief, factual, and neutral, and be careful to avoid unsubstantiated rumors and speculation, even if you can find a "source" for such gossip. Happy editing! --ShelfSkewedTalk16:21, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi ShelfSkewed, thanks for your excellent advice. I'm going to go with your opinion about :Redlinks and generally keep them in since they're referring to movies which are, like you say, de facto notable. And thanks for your advice about personal info -- I'll probably keep it in, but keep it brief, factual, and make sure the references are solid before including it. I'm going to to the tutorial some more and am trying to figure out how to get more pictures put into the article. If a picture appears in the Washington Post, for example, is this something that we can use in Wikipedia, or do we still need to get copyright approval? And if it's okay, how can we get the picture uploaded to wikipedia so it can appear in an article? If you have any advice here, thanks. Tomwsulcer (talk) 16:13, 23 July 2009 (UTC)tomwsulcer
Image and copyright issues are not topics I'm very knowledgeable about. I do know that rules about using copyrighted images are strict and well enforced. One thing you might try is searching the free images at Wikimedia Commons. Beyond that, you'll need to query an editor with more experience in these issues. Check the edit histories of the help articles dealing with images; a frequent contributor to one of those pages will be more helpful than I can be. Cheers!--ShelfSkewedTalk16:22, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, ShelfSkewed! And I think your handle name and how you chose it is VERY COOL! I found pictures on the Wikimedia Commons site of Dana Delany and included them so I hope this is a good choice. They're so much better to look at than long filmography sections. Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:58, 23 July 2009 (UTC)tomwsulcer
Hey there, noticed your revert here. I'd like to point out that Face Off is in fact a disambiguation page; a user previously made an improper cut and paste move, which I went to revert. Hope this clears things up. Regards. — Σxplicit19:05, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Ah, I see. But in this case that editor's edit to the Face/Off hatnote unintentionally ended up being the right thing to do. All intentional links--links that don't need to be fixed--to dab pages should use the (disambiguation) link, even if it's a redirect. Cheers!--ShelfSkewedTalk19:21, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. In regard to your recent edit of Terror, we recommended that, in the future, you use the preview button before you save; this helps you find any errors you have made, reduces edit conflicts, and prevents clogging up recent changes and the page history. Thank you for your support of this great project. As I'm sure you can appreciate, we have no choice but to block vandalism of our pages. If you have an honest dispute, your fellow editors require you to bring it up on the talk page of the article. Wholesale deletion of entire sections will not be permitted. This is your only warning. --BurnOMG (talk) 13:28, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
I see you changed "serial" to "series" for the Australian TV programme under the article entitled The Stranger. Technically it was in fact a serial, and was described as such, by both the BBC, the Radio Times and the Australian TV network, from when it was originally broadcast in the mid 1960s. A serial is where the story line is interupted by the end of an episode, but continues on directly with the next episode until the final episode of the serial. In a TV "series" this isn't necessarily so. Therefore would it not be better and more accurately described as a TV serial? It may be that "series" it is considered "a standard disambiguator", but surely that is just the consequence of either "dumbing down" or the "Americanization" of the English language? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.28.144.219 (talk) 09:20, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Well, I tried to follow your lead; I went to the List of Australian television series and changed the link there to The Stranger (Australian TV serial) and was promptly reverted by an Australian editor who insisted on "series". I think "series" is the standard disambiguator for all episodic television programs, regardless of story continuity. Myself, I'm fine with either "serial" or "series"; I just want the link to be the same wherever it appears. Perhaps you could discuss it further with J Bar, the editor who changed the link back to "series" at List of Australian television series.--ShelfSkewedTalk14:23, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Hello, I've just started a discussion on the above page about its clean-up. As you tagged it, I thought I'd let you know. Thanks and keep up the good work, Boleyn2 (talk) 20:34, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Proposed deletion of Happy Birthday (DJ Bobo song)
Shelfskewed, i realize you may not be very involved with that article, but no one else seems to be either; and the WP:Proposed deletion page indicates that i should notify someone, so ... i chose you! Sssoul (talk) 18:50, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
If it matters, I concur with your prod. The song wasn't released as a single, and the album itself doesn't have an article. Definitely not sufficiently notable for a separate article. --ShelfSkewedTalk20:12, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
First Things First rename
I don't understand why you felt it was necessary to rename "First Things First (Bob Bennett album)" to "First Things First (album)"; however, what the page is referred to as doesn't matter to me.
What does matter to me is that you've broken all the other pages that refer to "First Things First (Bob Bennett album)". Yes, you fixed the link for the graphic; however, you didn't change any of the other referring pages.
Please take time to search for the other pages and fix them; or, simply undo the two changes you've made.
Nothing is "broken" at all. The article is located at First Things First (album), and First Things First (Bob Bennett album) redirects to it. In the article, click on What links here in the Toolbox in the left column, and you'll see that the other articles still connect to the renamed article. So there's no need to fix any links (except the one for the image file, to keep the bots from tagging it as having an invalid fair-use rationale). Also, editing just to amend working redirects is discouraged. Fixing the link consumes more resources than letting it be. And I moved the article because the general guidelines for disambiguation suggest that disambiguation should be kept as simple as possible. Because there is no other album titled First Things First with a Wikipedia article, the article for Bennett's album should be at the simplest designation. Regards, --ShelfSkewedTalk02:44, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Having difficulty finding the time to wrap up the article. If you are interested, your help would be appreciated.
There are plenty of references at the talk page, it's just a matter of digging for quotes. GabrielVelasquez (talk) 04:54, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
Hey, I just wanted to give you a heads up that I somewhat undid your edit, taking out the reference in the DFW article about dogs. I added other pertinent pieces of information to broaden that section. There's more info out there about the importance of his various dogs in his life -- in the meantime, the information is more well-supported. It could be there's a better way to word the information, perhaps it doesn't belong under family, etc., but let's keep an open mind about the notion that dogs were a central them in his personal life, worth reporting in the article. Best. 842U (talk) 17:26, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Not a problem. As it was before, the dog info seemed like a random fact--more or less like the tattoo info you removed--so I took it out. But I don't feel that strongly about it either way. Cheers! --ShelfSkewedTalk17:29, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Hey I am new to wiki still and was interested in learning how to upload pictures. I did read through the image uploading and usage but still a little unclear to me.--Cjones132002 (talk) 00:35, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
Heh. I've done it and the procedure is still a little unclear to me. So, my first piece of advice: Just go ahead and do it, even if you don't know it all. No one is going to send Wikipedia cops to knock on your door. If you make a mistake, it can always be fixed, and it will be, in the end.
I assume you've been to the page Wikipedia:Upload (accessible from the Upload file link in the toolbox in the left column). If you start there, it will walk you through the whole process, step by step. The first things to consider are the copyright and licensing issues. Is this what's giving you trouble? It did me. It's best to assume that any picture or image is under some form of copyright. Usable free images can be found at Wikimedia Commons, and many of the images at Flickr are suitably licensed. If we're talking about an album cover that you've scanned, then you'll need to include a description and a fair-use rationale--and for the latter, you'll need to include a separate rationale for each article the image will be used in. Fortunately, all this stuff is included in the walkthrough. Anyway, as I said, just go ahead and do it, and do the best you can with the legalities. If you don't get it right the first time, you'll no doubt get a message on your talk page from an editor or a bot telling you what's missing, and you can fix it then. If I have misunderstood your question, or failed to answer it completely, keep on asking, and I'll do my best to try to answer. --ShelfSkewedTalk03:21, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
It is germaine that OK was the original form, not okay. I don't want to get into an editing war, but I feel strongly that this is misleading and wrong. Ksnow (talk) 18:22, 10 September 2009 (UTC)Ksnow
The etymological discussion in the article Okay would suggest that, although the preponderance of the evidence may seem to point one way, too little is known to assert a definitive origin for the term. And all that's required on a disambiguation page is a brief description that allows a reader to identify which use is dealt with in a particular article. I think it would be misleading for that description to assert something that the target article does not. The etymological details can be left to the article itself.--ShelfSkewedTalk18:57, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Good point, I've taken to AFD. It wasn't showing up on their website when I checked the other day. However, there's a rather strange lack of reliable sources; nothing but false positives on Google News, and Allmusic provides only a blank placeholder. Don't you think that's rather suspicious for an album by such a popular act? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer)16:51, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
re:wikt
hello. I don't want to be incendiary but- depending on what you are looking for- (and I'll prob just give up this fight eventually) wiktionary is a piece of crap composed of crap pages containing crap content. do ppl still work over there?
anyway, I understand that 'pædia must resist "dictdef", right? but what if someone goes to a page like because and they want to know what "because" means? now I would send them to answers.com, because hehe answers.com does not suck. where would you send them? wiktionary?!? wiktionarians seem like they're trying real hard to get pronunciations right and stuff but wow. It's such an awkward uninviting interface. the simple stripped-down wiki look does not serve it well these days. crap.
I think we should not be afraid to take content from answers.com and put it on pedia if it's good content. I think ppl have forgotten how wiki pages start off imperfect and then get improved upon. unthinking reversion takes content backwards. BoogityBang (talk) 15:51, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Because disambiguation pages are not dictionary articles. Because they are navigation pages to Wikipedia articles. Because if you want to know the dictionary definition of a word, you should look in a dictionary, not an encyclopedia. Because the Manual of Style for disambiguation pages specifically prescribes linking to Wiktionary rather than including a dictionary definition on the page. Because I have offered the compromise of a normal entry that links to a relevant article: Grammatical conjunction. --ShelfSkewedTalk17:31, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the gift
Many thanks for that infobox, it was very thoughtful of you. Admittedly, I am really not the sort who has the programing literacy (much less the patience) to construct infoboxes, so I just sort of did the generic DIY text-job. Thank you. I'll display it proudly. Cheers! Ryecatcher773 (talk) 21:41, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
You're very welcome--I saw your page, and I was bored, so.... I don't have any programming literacy, either; I just shamelessly copy someone else's code and then experiment until I get what I want. You might notice that the "book collecting" box on my page is just a tweaked version of the "bibliophile" one on yours. The Gun Battery box is the same thing jiggered further.--ShelfSkewedTalk21:51, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
How Long (J. D. Souther song)
I'm just wondering — where is it written that songs are generally disambiguated by the original artist? I've had this questioned in at least one move. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer)02:36, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
I don't know that it is explicitly stated, but it does seem to be the consensus choice because, apart from dabbing by the year of release (generally avoided because there are cases when two songs with the same title have been released in the same year) it is an objective means of disambiguation that avoids arguments about which version is better, or more important, or more popular. Concerns about the article being potentially more difficult to find because the title uses an obscure original performer can be dealt with by creating the appropriate redirect(s) for better-known versions. How Long (J. D. Souther song) is no harder for a user to find just because it uses a less-famous performer in the disambiguation, since How Long (Eagles song) redirects to it anyway. But I would agree that the guideline should be explicitly stated in the naming conventions--or it should be discussed to determine whether it really is the consensus, and then the consensus decision, whatever it is, should be included in the naming conventions. Perhaps you could raise the issue at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music/MUSTARD. It's been discussed before, but somehow the issue has never been dealt with in the actual naming conventions. Cheers.--ShelfSkewedTalk03:40, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
I"M BACK!!!
Remember me man! I'm back!
Black Cat
Why you delete Black Cat 2008 moviefilm! I seen it on the Youtube!
Please Stop
Please stop! If you continue to delete parts of articles like you did with Black Cat Disambugation you will be blocked from editing! Thankyou!
Femboy123
You again!
Table Mountain
Re your comment here, FYI the editor in question did the same thing after I cleaned up Phantom Falls several weeks ago. He or she has made no attempt to reply to my query and I've been too busy to deal with it properly. (I hope to do so later this week.) I'm not sure what the problem is, but it needs to stop. Rivertorch (talk) 19:53, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
I've had interactions with this editor before; he has also edited as Briantravelman and 99.0.40.107. This is why I was careful to avoid substantive changes and limited myself to mechanical corrections in the Table Mountain article—which, by the way, I only came across because I police incoming links to the dab page Spring, and not because I was following this editor's edits. All I can say is that he is resistant to his edits being changed, and to following Wikipedia guidelines. My corrections have been restored by another editor, though for how long remians to be seen. Perhaps yours will be also--although I'd prefer it not be by me, since I don't want to reinforce his notion that I have it in for him.--ShelfSkewedTalk20:14, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Dude! Okay! Some of the changes, like spelling corrections were good! But incase you didn't know, names of a certain animal species such as Western Pacific Rattlesnake and Black Tailed Deer should always be capitalized!
You deleted a link to a deleted page. How does one know the page was deleted (as opposed to never existing), and can one see the deleted page and reason for deletion? Ronstew (talk) 17:38, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
I looked around, too--at several sites with Glastonbury line-ups; probably many of the same ones you checked--but no luck. I'll keep an eye out, though. Cheers!--ShelfSkewedTalk21:14, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for the kind words. Honestly, I just went there to dab a link. Then I saw the word acclaimed about half a dozen times on either side of the item I was editing, and, after I began removing them, I couldn't stop. I think much time and space could have been saved earlier by simply adding a note at the top of the page: "Everyone listed here is very, highly, extremely acclaimed, authentic, important, influential, innovative, and legendary, and all of their work is the same, not to mention classic." Cheers!--ShelfSkewedTalk12:22, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
"Everyone here is ... extremely acclaimed ... legendary ..." ha, ha, ha, ha. My first impulse was "that would be a good to add"! A fraction of a second later, I thought, "Wait, some of those people aren't innovative and important." Then I just started laughing. Can we just put a neutral laugh-track on the article? Piano non troppo (talk) 20:48, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
The other "exceptions" you mention don't seem to me to be exceptions at all; they are ambiguous links that should be disambiguated and/or corrected to link to the intended article.
This looks as if you're saying that residuals should not redirect to residual, which is a disambiguation page, but instead should be "corrected" or "disambiguated" in order to link to some "intended article".
As I said in my followup at Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation pages with links, I misunderstood your point: You were talking about the redirect pages themselves, as article-namespace links to dab pages, but I was thinking of links within articles to those redirects. I see now the point you were getting at, and I apologize for trivializing it. And, as I also mentioned suggested earlier—although I didn't say it in so many words—I do think a small clarification is in order to emphasize that it is ambiguous links in article content that should be rare, and not all such links (hatnotes, redirects) in the article namespace.--ShelfSkewedTalk05:09, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
OK. It wasn't clear to me that that's what you were saying. I think technically redirect pages are in the article namespace. But it seems you meant in actual articles. Michael Hardy (talk) 19:32, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Next time you're reverting a non-vandalism edit, please provide a clearer rationale than "um, so what?". Now what was your reasoning again? Eugeniu B+106:43, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
It's in my previous edit summary: The Lady Gaga song's article is much more heavily trafficked, by about 40:1, and is thus the more likely object of a user's search, so it should be nearer the top of this short list. See WP:MOSDAB#Order of entries. Chronology is not a particularly useful criterion in this case. And next time you're reverting a non-vandalistic edit, don't ignore the other editor's rationale. Since I'd already reversed it once, you might have considered discussion before changing it again.--ShelfSkewedTalk06:53, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
Re your reversion of edits to the Hand disambiguation page, please provide an explanation here of the specific rubiric for the action(s), not just reference to general pages on disambiguation. Thank you. 12:11, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
The items restored were all topics that are or could be ambiguously called Hand or The Hand and appear in Wikipedia articles. Disambiguating such topics is what dab pages are for. Your explanation for most of the removals, "No Wikipedia pages to disambiguate", seems to presume that a topic must have its own separate article to qualify for disambiguation. But this isn't so; WP:MOSDAB deals specifically with, and shows several examples of, dabbing topics that are dealt with within other articles. It also discusses the criteria for the inclusion of red-linked entries.--ShelfSkewedTalk14:51, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your response. You wrote: "WP:MOSDAB deals specifically with, and shows several examples of, dabbing topics that are dealt with within other articles. It also discusses the criteria for the inclusion of red-linked entries." Please provide the specific cites in each instance you allude to. Thank you. Wikiuser100 (talk) 05:36, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
No, I don't think I will. I'm not going to spend my time laying out for you a specific justification for each and every entry at Hand (disambiguation). You can read WP:MOSDAB for yourself. If you then wish to open a discussion concerning specific entries on the Hand dab page, you can do so on that page's Talk page.--ShelfSkewedTalk05:46, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
No need to get huffy. You reverted a not insignificant number of my edits. Then you vaguely cite MOSDAB, etc., as justification; when asked to provide specific rationale you refuse. What would you like me to do next, restore my edits and meet you in Dispute Resolution? Be reasonable here. You are the one who made the reversions: the burden is on you to justify them with specifics. Thank you. Wikiuser100 (talk) 06:14, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
In fact, you are incorrect. You made edits, and they were reverted. Per WP:BRD, the obligation is on you to discuss the changes you wish to make. And my justifications were not vague; in my edit summary I cited the section WP:MOSDABRL regarding the red-linked entries, and, regarding the other entries you removed, I made the point above that topics are not disqualified from inclusion on dab pages on the grounds that they do not have their own articles. If you wish a specific section to refer to for the latter point, consult WP:MOSDAB#Items appearing within other articles.--ShelfSkewedTalk06:27, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
How am I "incorrect"? In what regard? That is a very broad statement, lacking obvious context.
And to say "You made edits, and they were reverted" is to hide behind the fact that you made the reverts, not some third party. You are the other principal here, not a third party seeing to mediate.
Moreover, I do not read WP:BRD to say that the onus is on me: it's on you, as you are the one who made the reverts and have atoped WP:BRD as your modus. You must justify your actions, not me mine. That is why I have persistently asked you to provide just that, your specific justification, not just a general arm wave at Wikipedia disambiguation page conventions.
It appears you have finally made a bona fide effort in that direction with your last link. I consider the content there sufficient and on its basis accept your reverts. I am not, however, impressed by how you conducted yourself during this interaction. A much less stubborn and imperious manner would have gone much further much sooner. Perhaps you will be inspired to adopt it in the New Year. Yours. Wikiuser100 (talk) 04:35, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
Funny. I explained my edits, repeatedly, at greater length than you ever devoted to explaining yours, and yet I am still somehow in the wrong. You believe you are allowed to ask that I justify my edits, but when I ask the same of you in return, again I am in the wrong. And I'm the imperious one?--ShelfSkewedTalk05:55, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
){kind=link}