User talk:Bkonrad#Always precious

Happy new year! Anyhow, I've noticed that you edited my entry on Ajax. Thanks a lot for doing that and reminding me of DABPIPE & DABONE. However, as you can probably see from my contributions, I've been adding disambiguation entries left and right using identical formatting - DABPIPE shouldn't be an issue, but I definitely don't feel like redoing every single edit again to comply with DABONE. So, any bots/automated scripts you know of that can help me fix this? Otherwise, I'll take some time later to manually change them if that's the only possible solution. Once again, happy 2025, and thanks for the reminder! HKLionel (talk) 19:15, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

:Sorry, not offhand. AWB could probably be configured to do something useful for that, but I haven't used it in ages. Re piped links, WP:DABPIPE states: {{gi|Piping may be used when the link is in the description (see § Items appearing within other articles) for linking to a section or anchor point rather than an entire article}}. You generally should not be placing a piped section link in the initial position of an entry. older ≠ wiser 20:23, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

:Also, from your contributions, you appear to only have a couple dozen or so edits to disambiguation pages. That really is nothing to go back and re-edit them. older ≠ wiser 20:28, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

::Guess I'm just lazy! Alright, thanks for your advice. HKLionel (talk) 06:43, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

On 2024 NCAA Division I FBS football season, why did you change NIL to NLI? 2605:59C8:409B:4E10:9CAB:31E6:820D:E53A (talk) 05:26, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

:The National Letter of Intent is NLI not NIL. older ≠ wiser 12:27, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

I saw you reverted my edit due to a red link here. There are multiple other red links on the page that seemed to be deemed ok, so I'm confused why those weren't also reverted. Also, is it ok for it to remain on the page without any link? There used to be a page but it was recently demoted to a draft. Plastixfy (talk) 05:24, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

:@Plastixfy Red links are OK on a dab page as long as they have a blue link as part of the entry, linking to an article which includes that same red link. Only one other red link didn't have such a blue link, and I've now added one. If the boy band is mentioned, reliably sourced, in another article, please re-add it with a link to that article (perhaps a description of the Chinese boy band scene, or the town they come from?). See WP:DABRED for more info. Thanks. PamD 09:09, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

I moved the Harsh vocals dab to Harsh vocals (disambiguation) so that links can be directed to the dab page without the bot freaking out about it. "Harsh vocals" is often ambiguous as it can include more than just death growls.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 14:12, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

:That's not how it works. If there is no primary topic, the disambiguation page should be at the base name without the parenthetical "(disambiguation)". Only when there is a primary topic (or redirect to a primary topic) should the disambiguation page have the parenthetical. older ≠ wiser 14:15, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

::Ok. Thank you.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 14:23, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

:::{{Tpw}} @Bkonrad It seems barely valid as a dab page. I wonder if Harsh vocals ought to redirect to Extended vocal technique#Distortion instead? PamD 15:04, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

::::Yes, I agree. I wasn't looking to dive into the subject area details, only where the dab belongs if there is one. older ≠ wiser 15:14, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

::::I'd be happy with that.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 17:01, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

:::::Done. PamD 17:21, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

File:Ambox warning pn.svg

{{Quote box|quote=

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 :Adobe Flash Platform (disambiguation) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G14 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a disambiguation page which either

:::*disambiguates only one extant Wikipedia page and whose title ends in "(disambiguation)" (i.e., there is a primary topic);

:::* disambiguates zero extant Wikipedia pages, regardless of its title; or

:::*is a redirect with a title ending in "(disambiguation)" that does not target a disambiguation page or page that has a disambiguation-like function.

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 removing the speedy deletion tag. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 20:42, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

I was trying to correct the redirect and disambiguation as Dems without all capitals most certainly refers to the Democratic Party of the United States while DEMS would be an abbreviation of other terms and wouldn't refer to the Democratic Party. Theofunny (talk) 18:21, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

:In most cases, such different capitalizations are usually combined on a single disambiguation page. If you are suggesting that Dems should become a primary topic redirect to Democratic Party (United States), that should be discussed, likely on the talk page in the form of a requested move discussion. That is, if you want the disambiguation page to be at DEMS, the entire associated edit history for the dab should be moved rather than performing a copy-paste move. older ≠ wiser 18:27, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

::I understand it now. Theofunny (talk) 18:28, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Helpful advice: In fact this now Turk town was Greek Rhaedestus for ages before its people were massacred. Leave what i have inserted alone. Otherwise you are just a shill for the Turks. Ελενη Φ. (talk) 15:49, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

:While there is certainly a sizeable population of Greeks in the city, that does not make it Greek in the usually understood sense of being a part of Greece. If being formerly Greek in antiquity is what you're considering, that phrase can apply to large areas of the eastern Mediterranean and for the most part is not very helpful in contemporary context. older ≠ wiser 15:55, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Hey, Bkonrad, can you point me at the RfC you're referring to? Thanks! Valereee (talk) 15:53, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

:Sure, Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 January 16#Gulf of America. You can find such things yourself using [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:WhatLinksHere?target=Gulf+of+America&namespace=4&limit=50 What links here] and a note linking to the discussion was added at the top of the talk page (this is normally done, although sometimes it is missed or later gets deleted). older ≠ wiser 16:25, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Why did you make the edit you made? I won't revert it because it didn't change the information that was there, but it put it in a different format from all the other films by not having the year in parentheses. Maurice Magnus (talk) 18:28, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

I changed my mind and reverted, because I see no reason to have the 1945 film appear different from all the others. Maurice Magnus (talk) 19:42, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

:WP:DABPIPE describes how and when to use piped links on disambiguation pages. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Salome_(disambiguation)&diff=prev&oldid=1272465221 This] is not such a case. older ≠ wiser 21:31, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

The pages on Rudman and Radman do not adequately represent individuals of diverse origins, leading to potential discrimination against those who bear these names. Currently, the protection status prevents necessary updates, including the addition of appropriate references in multiple languages. We request that the protection be reconsidered to allow for improvements. Additionally, we ask that edits be made where necessary rather than reverted, as the current labels and categorisation contribute to the misrepresentation and stigmatisation of individuals from different backgrounds. Gondishapur.uni (talk) 09:42, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

:The previous edits to the pages were completely unreferenced and very poorly constructed by Wikipedia guidelines. And the so-called articles overwrote the existing disambiguation or surname list pages. I suggest you start a WP:Draft version and having it reviewed by experienced editors following the articles for creation process. older ≠ wiser 11:23, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

::Thank you. Feel free to suggest edits: Draft:Rudman Gondishapur.uni (talk) 11:28, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

::Hi, I have updated the article. Rest assured that all information is evidenced, and I can provide additional resources if needed. All references have been individually double-checked, and links have been provided. Please suggest edits rather than reverting the changes. Gondishapur.uni (talk) 10:43, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

:::Your draft submission was declined and yet you simply copied over the content with minimal changes. That is bogus. Please try to actually get and follow some advice from editors at WP:AFC or you might try at WP:Tea house. older ≠ wiser 12:46, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

::::I am a university professor with an h-index of 44 at one of the top 20 global universities, and you want to teach me about referencing? You did not even review the edits made compared to the draft version and simply reverted the document. The revised version is comprehensively different from the draft, and since this article currently exists, keeping another one in draft form is nonsense. Instead, I should publish the information there so others can edit and refine it. Just because you do not want to check references and suggest edits does not mean you should revert reliable evidence simply because you do not like it. If it does not follow the Wikipedia template, that does not justify removing correct information. Other editors can improve it instead. Yet, you chose to delete the entire section without properly reviewing it or based on nonsensical excuses. Gondishapur.uni (talk) 13:04, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

:::::That's swell. Whatever you index of self-congratulation might be, you have much to learn about writing for Wikipedia. older ≠ wiser 13:07, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

::::::And still, no reasoning for why you reverted the last version. If you know something other than simply reverting reliable information, then explain exactly why you reverted my last edits. Gondishapur.uni (talk) 13:11, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Rudman is currently a name list with the primary purpose of getting people to the article they are looking for. You overwrote that and buried the list at the end of the article after a lot of content that is tangential for navigation. Also, for the most part, we do not combine articles on names from completely unrelated origins. It might be there is sufficient content for articles such as Rudman (Persian name) and Rudman (Anglo-Saxon name), though I very much doubt that either is the primary topic. older ≠ wiser 13:19, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

::::::::Ok, now you are changing your claim from “no difference” to questioning what should be included? And how do you determine what should be written on a page? Is there any guideline specifying what must be included—whether it is about a surname’s etymology and origin? I would argue that this is the most relevant information people seek, and from there, they can explore the name list. So, if there is a dispute, does that justify deleting the entire section just because of your personal interpretation of what should be included? If there is any misinformation, incorrect content, or improper referencing, you should only remove those specific parts, not the entire article. Gondishapur.uni (talk) 13:29, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::For being a University professor as you claim, your writing here is mostly incomprehensible. I already suggested reviewing Wikipedia:WikiProject Anthroponymy and asking for assistance at WP:Tea house. I've no interest whatsoever in debating any specific points for the content you propose. older ≠ wiser 13:34, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Also, you might want to look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Anthroponymy for some guidance in writing about names. older ≠ wiser 13:22, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

File:Information.svg Hello. Regarding the recent revert you made to :Meaning of Life (disambiguation): you may already know about them, but you might find Wikipedia:Template index/User talk namespace useful. After a revert, these can be placed on the user's talk page to let them know you considered their edit inappropriate, and also direct new users towards the sandbox. They can also be used to give a stern warning to a vandal when they've been previously warned. Thank you. Shadow311 (talk) 20:06, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

:Thanks for this info. I know about the existence of such templates, but in my opinion, they are of little actual value in most cases and a lot of bother (unless you're a page patroller regular with some automated scripts to assist). older ≠ wiser 20:42, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

{{ombox

| name = First Edit Day

| image = 50px

| imageright = 50px

| style = border: 2px solid CornflowerBlue; background: repeating-linear-gradient(300deg, MistyRose, AntiqueWhite, Ivory, Honeydew, Azure, GhostWhite, MistyRose 50%);

| textstyle = padding: 0.75em; text-align:center;

| plainlinks = yes

| text = Happy First Edit Day!
Hi Bkonrad! On behalf of the Birthday Committee, I'd like to wish you a very happy anniversary of the day you made [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Bkonrad&dir=prev&limit=1 your first edit] and became a Wikipedian! Nedia Wanna talk? Stalk my edits 00:32, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

}}

{{ombox

| name = First Edit Day

| image = 50px

| imageright = 50px

| style = border: 2px solid CornflowerBlue; background: linear-gradient(to left, Gold, #FFF600);

| textstyle = padding: 0.75em; text-align:center;

| plainlinks = yes

| text = Happy First Edit Day!
Hi Bkonrad! On behalf of the Birthday Committee, I'd like to wish you a very happy anniversary of the day you made [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Bkonrad&dir=prev&limit=1 your first edit] and became a Wikipedian! User:Acer-the-Protogen (talk) 01:50, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

}} {{Wikicookie|Here's to you!}} (Acer's Communication Receptacle | what did I do now) | (PS: Have a good day) (acer was here) 01:28, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

30px

The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Provincial_law&redirect=no Provincial law] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at {{section link|1=Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 February 13#Provincial law}} until a consensus is reached. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 14:08, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

{{ombox

| name = First Edit Day

| image = 50px

| imageright = 50px

| style = border: 2px solid CornflowerBlue; background: linear-gradient(60deg, MistyRose, AntiqueWhite, Ivory, Honeydew, Azure, GhostWhite);

| textstyle = padding: 0.75em; text-align:center;

| plainlinks = yes

| text = Happy First Edit Day!
Hi Bkonrad! On behalf of the Birthday Committee, I'd like to wish you a very happy anniversary of the day you made [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Bkonrad&dir=prev&limit=1 your first edit] and became a Wikipedian! DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 06:16, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

}}

P.S. I am so sorry for the lateness! DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 06:16, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

Hi, I noticed you changed the target of Funny valentine to Funny Valentine (disambiguation), but added content categories corresponding to its previous target, and I'm curious as to why (I must be missing something about the reason for those categories!)

PS: By the way, I had swapped them and left it pointing to Funny (genus) because of WP:SMALLDIFFS, although I understand your reasoning for retargeting it. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 16:27, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

:I missed removing the categories from the redirect. Generally, where 'Specific Name' redirects to a parenthetically disambiguated title, the base title usually either becomes the disambiguation page or redirects to another. I had not at first took in everything about how the species article was about the genus (and that the genus name was actually funny and that 'funny valentine' was not only a common name).

:Part of what sparked curiosity about this was that the article briefly appeared in :Category:Articles with redirect hatnotes needing review and could not understand why 'funny valentine' would redirect to a spider genus. older ≠ wiser 16:40, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

Hi ,

ZDS (disambiguation)

Thank You For Reverting ! and I have kept it draft for main page, kindly add this in ZDS disambiguation

Thank You!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:ZDS_(company) 2403:A080:C04:5EA2:F414:D557:744E:AE01 (talk) 12:31, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

Hey @Bkonrad, quick question. I see you have moved the dab to the primary topic. About ten minutes after that, the dab was tagged by a bot as having more than 30 links. I think that should be solved by retargeting all links after the move to the old target, basically orphaning the dab at the primary topic page. Just asking if there was any reason that you didn't do it. Please tell me if you think this is just unrelated to it and a coincidence found by me. Thanks! ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 13:30, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

:Any incoming links from articles have already been resolved. I'm not sure who fixed the links. I generally do this, but I guess I overlooked this or got distracted by something. I'm not sure what you're asking with regards to "orphaning the dab at the primary topic page". older ≠ wiser 13:39, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

::Orphaning in my context just referred to making the incoming links [of the dab page] to zero (orphaned pages have no links). Now the links have become zero, though I could see around 20 around 30 minutes ago. ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 13:57, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

:::I suspect many of the links came through :Template:Chaka Khan, it can take up to several hours for the background processes to clear what links here up after a template change (or one can manually clear each article with null edits). It looks like Rodw [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Rodw&target=Rodw&offset=202502231956 fixed many of the links] shortly after I moved the dab. older ≠ wiser 14:12, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

::::That does make sense. I've seen template changes take time to reflect at a LinksHere page as well. Thanks for this clarification! ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 14:37, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

Hi, Bkonrad. I had corrected an incorrect order in the redirect for two pages of two brothers, Amaan Ali Khan and Ayaan Ali Khan. The subjects were born under the names and go by (both professionally and personally) "Amaan Ali Bangash" and "Ayaan Ali Bangash," respectively. I manually corrected this using cut-and-paste because the "move" function has been disabled in both pages.

What was your reason for reverting my edits? Is there a policy that this falls under? Given that these pages do not accurately document the common and birth names of their subjects, it would be pertinent to reverse the redirect order as I had attempted.

Looking forward to your response. Karanderao (talk) 18:25, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

:What you actually did was perform a cut and paste move, which is very much frowned upon because it makes a complete hash of the edit history. If you think the pages are incorrectly titled, please follow the requested move process. older ≠ wiser 18:30, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

::Thank you for the clarity! That makes sense. Will proceed as you've indicated. Cheers. Karanderao (talk) 20:07, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for reverting the Samsung phone moves that hadn't been discussed. Rockfang (talk) 18:39, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

:I did not anticipate any conflicts as it was done by common sense. If you are not involved in tech, please only do grammatical edits, nothing else. Even I got confused. PresoPoint (talk) 12:12, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

::Yes, you are confused. One does not need to be involved in tech to recognize bad moves. older ≠ wiser 12:15, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

What is WP:DMALPLACED ?Halbared (talk) 21:39, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

:Typo for WP:MALPLACED, shorthand for the guideline regarding placement of disambiguation pages. Basically, if there is no primary topic, the disambiguation page should be at the base title without "(disambiguation)". If you think there is no primary topic for South Pacific, please open a move discussion. There are quite a few links to 'South Pacific' and a very quick survey suggests most correctly intend the geographic area. older ≠ wiser 11:49, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Phil_Knight_(disambiguation)&diff=next&oldid=1283215013 reverting me]. I am astounded that I somehow managed to make such a dumb mistake. Green Montanan (talk) 16:21, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

30px

The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cathy_(disambiguation)&redirect=no Cathy (disambiguation)] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at {{section link|1=Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 April 7#Cathy (disambiguation)}} until a consensus is reached. 2603:7080:D8F0:D00:9E20:C89E:502C:D030 (talk) 11:56, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

Hi - I just closed the following AfD as keep: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stefan Pop (Dutch comedian). Part of the discussion included a request to move this to Stefan Pop. I noticed that you had reverted a page move related to the Stefan Pop disambiguation page with this edit: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stefan_Pop&diff=1285617862&oldid=1285597668]. As there is only a difference in punctuation between the two, it would appear a disambiguation page is unnecessary and hat notes would be sufficient (per different spelling variants). Any concerns with moving Stefan Pop (Dutch comedian) to Stefan Pop? Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 00:43, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

:I don't object to moving the article. My revert was of a cut and paste job. And yes, at this point some hatnotes would be sufficient. older ≠ wiser 10:40, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for turning Billy Murdoch (cricketer) back to Billy Murdoch. Could you do the same with Aleksandar Khristov (boxer) to Aleksandar Khristov, and Aleksandar Hristov (footballer) to Aleksandar Hristov. Barr Theo (talk) 13:59, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

• Since April 19, 2025, Hoàng Mai urban district has been dissolved and replaced by 7 new wards, which were belonged to the Hanoi Capital Area. Therefore, Hoàng Mai has become the name of a ward, not district. Hope someone stopped reverting it, please ! (2401:D800:236:FD2F:A804:9250:539:A5BF (talk) 02:39, 29 April 2025 (UTC))
• Please stop trying to back down. That made me very tired because my efforts were mercilessly destroyed. Hope you can learn more about the administrative changes of Vietnam today. (2401:D800:236:FD2F:A804:9250:539:A5BF (talk) 02:39, 29 April 2025 (UTC))
• :I know nothing about districts or wards of Hanoi and have no opinion about them one way or the other. I merely reverted a cut and paste move. If you think an article should be renamed, please follow the instructions at WP:RM to properly move the article along with the edit history. older ≠ wiser 11:02, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
• ::So you have admitted that you do not know and do not care about what is happening in Vietnam. That shows that you are forcing someone to look at it in your narrow way. You are not good at all my efforts. If I tried to sabotage Wiki, I wouldn't take too much time to write and try to explain, but what I received was the broken and even "took my hat" (chụp mũ, means "nail someone without any observation"). 2401:D800:1FF:3AC1:A975:EC9F:734F:9934 (talk) 03:54, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
• :::You continue to be silent. Are you trying to tease me? Why did I make great efforts to create those articles, while you continuously delete them, so what do you do for? I am very helpless because of your behavior, but you still don't reply and look at me. 2401:D800:1FF:3AC1:A975:EC9F:734F:9934 (talk) 08:54, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
• ::::That is it ! They did not reply and were completely silent, but they always waited for me or someone to insult to get it as an excuse to lock the account. I suggested that they said they were not allowed to argue here, but when I quoted the article, they deleted and did not state the reason for deletion. They always wait for me to insult them to lock and do not accept the difference ideas. 2401:D800:1FF:3AC1:A975:EC9F:734F:9934 (talk) 08:58, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
• :::::Calm down, not everyone on the globe follows your editing schedule. I sometimes need to sleep and occasionally don't check in for days at a time. The instructions for requesting a page move are at WP:RM. older ≠ wiser 10:42, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::Yes, I can sympathize with you, but do you sympathize with my problems, Sir ? My place has no social networks, so a heartless action from you that forced me to stand for many hours next to a preschool to get some waves to recover what was deleted. By the way, its name is Dongsim, a school with many teachers from the US. In your opinion, should I treat them like you treated my posts ? 2401:D800:1FF:3AC1:A975:EC9F:734F:9934 (talk) 11:49, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
• :::::::Of course not, no one has suggested that. But limited access is not an excuse to make cut and paste moves or to make substantial changes without at least some sort of edit summary. older ≠ wiser 11:56, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
• This is a big problem for you or anyone like you. After a hard afternoon of correcting, explaining and calling you out, now someone (PharyngealImplosive7) repeats your actions. He continues to not read and just reverts automatically. Is that how you and all those who claim to be responsible work? I will have to continue to cry, cry and continue to call thousands of times until when will you stop doing those meaningless actions? I actually cried while it was raining heavily in Hanoi because all my efforts were reduced to zero. You simply made excuses for lack of sleep and I could do nothing but be angry and helpless. If you were me, would you calm down? I did not come here to insult anyone, I just gave information about the reality of Vietnam, but all the Americans did not give me a chance to work, even the smallest. They backtracked as if it were a hobby and did not care about the truth. I explained to one person, but the next deleted it, the next acted like that, do you think I can be calm, or do I simply have to obey even though you know you are wrong? (JIlQIM (talk) 14:28, 30 April 2025 (UTC))
• :Perhaps you might want to consider that you are going about this the wrong way and seek some advice from more experienced editors. I might suggest WP:TEAHOUSE usually has helpful editors with considerable patience. older ≠ wiser 14:30, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
• He didn't read but he deleted automatically. Can I calm down ?
• PharyngealImplosive7 reverted: Đan Phượng district, Hà Đông province, Tonkin (now Phùng township, Hanoi).
• Me: Đan Phượng district, Hà Đông province, Tonkin (now [https://laodongthudo.vn/huyen-dan-phuong-du-kien-con-3-don-vi-hanh-chinh-cap-xa-sau-sap-xep-188638.html Đan Phượng commune], Hanoi).
• You are trying to justify your mistakes, which is contrary to what I learned as a child (teachers always told us that Americans respect all differences and even criticism from someone). You have done wrong things that cost me a lot of time and effort to start over (let's talk about the tower of Babel, when I built it and you destroyed it). I see no corrective action from you other than giving random directions to some address to deny responsibility. You destroy the house and then you act like a prophet advising the homeowner to find a good craftsman.

:Sorry, but your basic error which is essentially the extent of my involvement or interest in your edits is that you performed copy and paste moves. That is very much discouraged as it makes a mess of the contribution history, which is a requirement of the licenses to which you agree each time you make an edit. older ≠ wiser 14:48, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

::I ask you to explain your recent rollback. You still do not want to admit the fact that the Vietnamese administrative system is changing. How many times do I have to explain to you that HBT is now just a small ward ? JIlQIM (talk) 15:25, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

:::How many times do I need to say that you should not move a page by cutting and pasting the content. older ≠ wiser 15:34, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

• You keep not reading and just silently destroy all my efforts. Meanwhile, I keep asking and you keep destroying.
• I would like to ask you to quickly recover the article about Cầu Giấy. It is a ward, not the district. How many times will I have to bow to your backward? When I propose seriously, you justify sleep shortage, but you continue to sneak to recover sketchy or worthless information without caring about the contribution of others. I also have concerns about my work, no one pays me to constantly wait for your reply and are always afraid of someone to erase all my contributions. I see you don't have any responsibility, while you assert that you always work with it. Should that shameless action be welcomed? (2401:D800:260:38B9:354D:D6E8:62AE:57E3 (talk) 00:55, 1 May 2025 (UTC))
• :TỪ LIÊM is now a WARD. Someone responsible, please do not reverse this article in the district. I am very tired and angry with this American joke. Why are you just waiting for the opportunity when I offend me, while you always abuse power so that no one can update new information? Where is justice? 2401:D800:260:38B9:354D:D6E8:62AE:57E3 (talk) 04:53, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
• :I've never once edited Cầu Giấy or Cầu Giấy district; I don't know why you bring them up. Although now that you mention it, I can see that you've engaged in precisely the same disruptive editing there. I'll say it again as clearly as possible DO NOT CHANGE THE TITLE OF AN ARTICLE BY CUTTING AND PASTING THE CONTENT. older ≠ wiser 11:41, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
• I am very tired now after 12 hours of continuous work. Meanwhile, you still do not sympathize with my efforts and keep restoring outdated information. My posts are completely independent of your old information, but you continue to insult me ​​and do not allow me to edit them. Do you think I can be calm with such behavior for so long? I have to sympathize with your lack of sleep, while instead of helping me, you delete all my contributions in a very cruel way. Does that mean you are trying to tease me to satisfy your needs? Every time I got home, I had to check to see if my post was still there. I was stressed, angry, and exhausted from being mentally terrorized for so many days. (JIlQIM (talk) 14:14, 1 May 2025 (UTC))
• :You seem to not comprehend what I'm saying. The main issue is that you have cut and paste content from one article to another to change the title. That you may have made some other edits along the way has only complicated matters. That you do not use edit summaries also raises concerns for editors that review changes. Your own conditions regarding lack of sleep or whatever is of no consequence. Go to sleep if you must. Nothing will be adversely affected in any way whatsoever if a Wikipedia article has some slightly out-of-date information for a while longer. older ≠ wiser 14:23, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

• Now I just repeat for the 100th time that CẦU GIẤY is a ward, not a district, and this is 2025. What do you think if I delete all information about USA after 1900 so that someone thinks that it is just a country without electricity and airplanes? (JIlQIM (talk) 14:19, 1 May 2025 (UTC))
• :You would be permanently blocked. But that is in no way comparable. older ≠ wiser 14:25, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::Yes, you know that, but you still abuse your power to torment my spirit. Of course, I dare not dream about the Samaritans, but I see that nowadays compared to decades ago, most people are willing to erase something just because of a small mistake, even a mistake by their own standards. I try to build a 10 story tower, and where do you come to say it's one brick wrong, so you destroy the whole building and then wait for me to insult you to prohibit any construction in that area. That behavior is very different from what I have learned about American character. JIlQIM (talk) 14:56, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
• :::Really not at all the same. And your pathetic whining is really rather off-putting. If you actually want people to help, you might try to not be annoying (and to take advice with a bit more grace). older ≠ wiser 15:00, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::::{{tpw}} @JIlQIM Please calm down. Understand that no-one is trying to insult you or Vietnam, although people are losing patience with your editing behaviour.
• ::::There are at least two problems:
• ::::# It seems that you are wanting to make changes ahead of time, as the administrative changes in Vietnam will not take place until July. Please do not describe planned future changes as if they had already happened. It would be reasonable to add a section explaining planned future changes, with sources (something like "In April 2025 it was announced that from July 2025 the wards would be changed .... " etc, or whatever the case is, with a reference to a Reliable published source to support this, with the title translated into English if the source is not in English).
• ::::# You do not appear to understand that "Copy and paste moves" are not allowed. To change the title of a page, you must use one of the procedures described in WP:Requested moves. Look at the changes you made: in [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=C%E1%BA%A7u_Gi%E1%BA%A5y&diff=1287586083&oldid=1068005913 this edit] at 06:44, 27 April 2025 to Cầu Giấy you added a large amount of material to what was previously a redirect. That material appears to have been copied from [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=C%E1%BA%A7u_Gi%E1%BA%A5y_district&oldid=1287440955 this version] of the article Cầu Giấy district, where it had been written by many different editors, gradually over time since 2008. By copying and pasting all this into another article you are claiming it all to be your own work, and stealing the work of many other editors. That is wrong. That is why User:Bkonrad and others keep reverting your edits. You are breaking the rules. They are responding to your breaking the rules, and would do so just the same if you were editing articles about American baseball players, Indian religion or Italian violinists.
• ::::If you cannot understand this, which has been explained to you several times already, then it seem that you do not have enough knowledge of the English language to edit English Wikipedia, and you would find it easier and less stressful to concentrate on editing Vietnamese Wikipedia. PamD 15:36, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

The history-disrupting changes that this user is trying to make are for proposed changes that haven't happened yet. The government just published their proposals; it will take a constitutional change to enact the changes. According to schedule, it won't be at least until July for these changes to take effect. In their effort at jumping the gun, they're also unfamiliar with using Wikipedia tools to rename articles, thus wantonly copying and pasting content. DHN (talk) 15:18, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

Hi, I noticed you reverted my addition to the Lodge disambiguation page. I've read through MOS:DABNOMENTION but, to be honest, I'm not able to follow it. Recognising that I'm not very familiar with Disambiguations, I did check it out at Wikipedia:WikiProject Disambiguation, which thought that the addition was ok. Would you be kind enough to clarify what the issue is? I am keen that the type of lodge as the gatehouse to a country estate is included if at all possible as it's a very common term. Thanks and regards. KJP1 (talk) 10:35, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

:Actually, I've now tried it with Gatekeeper's lodge, which I've just found. Does that work any better? KJP1 (talk) 10:46, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

::Yes, the link to gatekeeper's lodge is OK, IMO. The issue previously is that there is no mention whatsoever of "lodge" in the article doorman (profession). older ≠ wiser 11:32, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

:::OK, understood and thanks. Doorman didn't really work, as they're not quite the same thing. Nor does Porter, really, as, at least in Br. English, it's closer to an institutional use, e.g. the porter's lodge at a university college. So gatekeeper is probably best. KJP1 (talk) 13:30, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

File:Stop hand nuvola.svg Your recent editing history at :FBG shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 21:03, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

:An editor has been disruptively making a cut and paste move from FBG to FBG (disambiguation). There is no justification for this. older ≠ wiser 21:06, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

::I see. But don't you think that instead of reverting edits and being reverted back and seeing that the situation is going nowhere, wouldn't it have been a better idea to discuss with the other editor on their talk page and point out what he's doing wrong? Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 21:14, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

:::It's surprising to see an admin in the throes of an edit war. Please stop and discuss the changes you want to make on the article talk page. Even admins can be blocked for violating 3R. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:39, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

::::See Talk:FBG#Requested_move_6_May_2025. PamD 08:28, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::@PamD, Thanks. Always good to have a cooler head watching things here. older ≠ wiser 10:30, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

::::@Liz, I didn't want any changes made. I was reverting bad copy and paste moves.. older ≠ wiser 10:29, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

:::@Ivebeenhacked, Yes, I got a bit caught up in things. I wasn't even able to formulate a comment before the bad copy and paste was re-done. older ≠ wiser 10:27, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Hi, could you explain why you reverted me? I didn't add Jujubee's listing, it was preexisting. I merely fixed the link redirecting to the fruit, which you undid. So now the page says the fruit is called Airline. Do you mind self-reverting? You're welcome to create a discussion about whether or not she should be listed there, but that's a valid argument, but I think we can all agree that the fruit definitely shouldn't be linked.

I hope my tone comes across alright here, I'm still waking up. I hope you have a lovely day! EllieDellie (talk) 14:47, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

:@EllieDellie {{tpw}} I think that was an accident, and have fixed the link with an explanatory edit summary PamD 15:28, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

:Yes, Sorry. I'm not sure what happened there. older ≠ wiser 16:54, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

::It's totally fine! I was half awake and confused but didn't want to accidentally start an extremely silly edit war. Hope you both had a great day! EllieDellie (talk) 01:00, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Not trying to have you fix the page you marked for clean up. I was wondering if there was anything majority wrong or something I can do to improve it. Was it just the introduction and styling of it? the introduction is my bad because I'm not too sure how to word it. I'm assuming the links are fine and the name. Thanks

Also if there's something that I might not know about styling disambig articles based off issues with it

Bidding stick newspapers (disambiguation) JamesEMonroe (talk) 23:54, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

:Start with WP:Disambiguation -- it's not clear there is a need for a disambiguation at this title. The page title implies there are more than one thing that could be known by the title "Bidding stick newspapers". However, there is not even a primary topic at that title Bidding stick newspapers. What you have now is a list of several papers that have (or had) the word budstikke in their title. That raises question of whether these are WP:partial title matches. It is possible that some or even all of the newspapers might casually be referenced by locals as the budstikke (or with whatever the corresponding Norwegian definite article would be). But if so, that would suggest the title of the disambiguation should be Budstikke (disambiguation). Unless the articles are commonly known in English by their translated names, this seems an unnecessary disambiguation.

:Secondarily, per WP:MOSDAB, disambiguation pages typically do not contain lengthy prose either in the intro or for individual entries. Usually the intro is a single sentence and each entry is usually a few words or a short phrase.

:Also consider MOS:HEADINGLINK, that section headings shouldn't contain links.

:That's enough to start with and I see other questions have been raised at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bidding stick newspapers (disambiguation). Further discussion should likely take place there or on Talk:Bidding stick newspapers (disambiguation). Someone suggested this entire page should be under Bidding stick#Newspapers --- I think that might be the most viable option. older ≠ wiser 11:13, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

::Thank you! and yeah its already being discussed JamesEMonroe (talk) 14:11, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

::(to add) I did have ideas on how to make it more up to par but with the afd... I thought its better to leave it

::Btw who implements the changes after consensuses? its small enough where if it is to be moved under bidding that it doesn't need to be merged and could be moved under manually for example, probably better with having control to have it fit in with the article. Id assume some is on part of the admin and some on the editor possible (depending).

::If you have a comment on a idea, an idea, or on expanding one, please do. it would be nice not to be the only crazy guy adding more then the vote comment lol. Whatever you think should be done, what my opinion on it is probably already shown on the discussion with my rational, and I cant push you to any side. JamesEMonroe (talk) 17:15, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

File:Yogo2783 Close crop.JPG

Ten years ago, you were found precious. That's what you are, always. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:57, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

There is an incorrect writing and stated information about a subject that is really fixed with Turkish sources. This information shows an extremely manipulative approach about the subject that was written. I made arrangements on this subject not too long ago and I also saw that this subject was reverted to its old incorrect form without any justification. Why are you, who published the arrangement and did not provide information about your arrangement, doing such a thing? How do you present to people in its old incorrect form a subject that has evidence that the Tripoli treaty was signed with the US in Turkish and that it was the first agreement signed in a foreign language other than English? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/EragonOTP EragonOTP (talk) 04:00, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

:Reliable, published sources state the source is in Arabic. There have been no reliable sources provided that indicate otherwise. older ≠ wiser 11:16, 19 May 2025 (UTC)