Vasily Zavoyko: If you found it unnecessary to insert a disamb. page, - fine, - but please be more careful not to delete other good changes. This is a note to you. Thank you! Cotling (talk) 14:47, 1 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please stop deleting relevant content without valid reason. I'm referring to specifically to the Medina_(disambiguation) page.

You reverted my changes, and I improved the content, but you reverted again. In both cases without stating a valid reason. People searching for this music is likely to end up on this page. Not only is Medina part of the title and the name of the band, but the chorus repeats "Medina" over and over again.

Please stop reverting relentlessly, or at least explain why you think it doesn't belong. Thank you in advance. 149.88.17.134 (talk) 19:10, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry, but no, your edit was not an improvement. Please review WP:MOSDAB; in particular, WP:DABONE and WP:DABMENTION and MOS:DABNOENTRY. older ≠ wiser 19:30, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The standard title for a given name article is Name (given name) since the word itself can refer to a number of other things besides the name. I moved these pages to titles that reflect the titles of multiple other given name articles. i have major objections to your reverting them. These are seemingly uncontroversial moves based on previously established precedent. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 15:35, 1 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No, these articles follow standard naming conventions in that a parenthetical phrase is not automatically appended. In cases where the name is the primary topic, there is no need for the parenthetical disambiguating phrase. older ≠ wiser 15:43, 1 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is unduly confusing considering the number of other things that might have the name or might have the name in the future such as a single-named performer or an organization or painting, etc. The standard title Name (given name) clarifies that the topic is tge history and usage of tge name. These are not disambiguation articles. They are properly articles regarding usage of tge name. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 15:50, 1 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Preemptive disambiguation has been proposed many times and soundly rejected with few exceptions. There is none for Wikipedia:WikiProject Anthroponymy articles. older ≠ wiser 15:59, 1 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(talk page watcher) @Bookworm857158367 If you think that either name is not the Primary Topic ( which could well be argued, with places, ships, etc), you could propose, for each, a not-uncontroversial multiple move of the disambiguation page to the basename and the given name page to the disambiguation name, as set out at WP:Requested moves. There would then be wider discussion. There might be a lot of incoming links to clear up, I haven't checked. PamD 16:53, 1 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I’d argue that the name pages aren’t actually disambiguation names but are properly articles about the meaning, history and usage of the name itself. They have significance in and of themselves. They aren’t intended to be place holders referring people to other articles. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 16:59, 1 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think you misunderstood what PamD was suggesting. If you think the name articles are not the primary topic, you should propose a requested move of both the name article and the disambiguation page. For example, to move Cedric to Cedric (given name) and Cedric (disambiguation) to Cedric. older ≠ wiser 18:39, 1 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Easy to find my post confusing, as I'm on phone and didn't notice that my intended "disambiguated name" had been changed to "disambiguation name" ( and it tried to do it again just now!) Sorry I didn't spot it. PamD 19:04, 1 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	Congrats on being the oldest still active editor of Taylor University CavsFan45 (talk) 18:36, 10 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I was trying to revert vandalism (the "habitual line-stepper" thing), and it seems your attempts to do the same were caught up in that. I am not a vandal and am sorry for the inconvenience! Patient Zero^talk 00:40, 20 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What's the rush? I was just gearing-up to begin an article on the Remington Starfire^[1] and you removed my preliminary addition to the Starfire disambiguation page. Have a look at the Olivetti Valentine too – this is where I spotted the Remington Starfire (and also another interesting typewriter called the Monpti, which could also be a useful addition to this encyclopaedia!). Cheers,

Cl3phact0 (talk) 12:06, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

WP:Write the article first. Entries on dab pages need to have some existing article with relevant content to link to. older ≠ wiser 14:59, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Why did you delete Michael Williams? 193.119.102.196 (talk) 11:04, 1 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If you mean this edit, there is no article for the person. older ≠ wiser 13:22, 1 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

So! Many of the entries don’t. It’s just to provide information on a Michael Williams citation. Why not mind your own business? 193.119.102.196 (talk) 21:22, 1 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Which other entries do not have a linked article that supports the usage? older ≠ wiser 23:38, 1 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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 your first edit and became a Wikipedian! The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:31, 13 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Happy First Edit Day, Bkonrad, from the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! Ezra Cricket (talk) 04:59, 13 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikidata item Q11312604 references "Snow Peak" as the English article, and that is the article to which the ja-wiki article is linked. Furthermore, it's unnecessary to have (company) in the name when the awkward parenthesis could be placed on a less-frequently visited disambiguation page. Please stop reverting the article to "Snow_Peak_(company)".

Ishiura (talk) 12:29, 13 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikidata does NOT in any way ever dictate how articles are titled in English Wikipedia. Do not move pages by cutting and pasting the content as that makes a mess of the edit history and attribution of contributors. If you are not able to move a page yourself, you can make request following instructions at WP:RM. As this is not an uncontroversial move, it should be discussed to establish consensus that the company is the primary topic. older ≠ wiser 12:36, 13 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OK. I'll create a topic on Snow_Peak_(company)'s talk page.

Ishiura (talk) 12:47, 13 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dear Bkonrad,

I'd like to extend a cordial invitation to you to join the Twenty Year Society, an informal group for editors who've been participating in the Wikipedia project for twenty years or more. ​

Best regards, Chris Troutman (talk) 14:05, 13 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

So 3 of my edits, on things like (name) and what it’s referring to pages, you quickly removed information about that name could refer to. All of them were specific abilities inside of a Roblox game. And I can’t cite for that because it’s a small edit and there isn’t gonna be an entire news article about a new ability inside of a Roblox game. May I politely ask why they were reverted? Also, I’m new to Wikipedia, just so you know. JAFactsDude (talk) 02:27, 14 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The edit summary was pretty clear (aside from one where I may have inadvertently hit rollback). None of the terms were so much as mentioned in the linked article. That is a minimal requirement for a disambiguation entry. There is no point to direct readers to pages that have nothing to say about a topic. older ≠ wiser 03:40, 14 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Okay, make sense now. JAFactsDude (talk) 03:42, 14 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]