Welcome to my talk page! If you leave me a message here, I will answer it here, so be sure to watch this page for a reply. Likewise, if I have left a message on your talk page, I will look for your response there. Thanks!

I'm very sorry I haven't had a chance to welcome you earlier, I have been incredibly busy lately. We are glad to have your help. Currently, we have really cut down the backlog of articles in need of copyedit. Therefore, a major goal at this moment is to identify new articles that are in need of work. When you run across them, be sure to tag them for copyediting.

If you have any questions at all, do not hesitate to drop me a line. Trusilver 16:33, 24 July 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for your edits, particularly "in addition to" - I knew what I'd put wasn't quite right but couldn't think of the right phrase. I still contend that "centred" is correct, but that's because I speak en-gb. It's not important enough that I'd go changing it back though. Thanks once again — Timotab ^{Timothy (not Tim, dagnabbit!)} 18:23, 3 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Saw a few more edits. Thanks. Yes, the wording is much better now. It's interesting, I was thinking that if I'd not made the effort to try and get it there, it might still be in its bad babelfished version. However, even though I didn't make it perfect, my improvements gave someone else the impetus to make it an even better article. I really like how this works! — Timotab ^{Timothy (not Tim, dagnabbit!)} 19:19, 3 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Xavier (name), and it appears to be very similar to another wikipedia page: Xavier. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot 17:04, 29 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, SlackerMom. It appears that you copied and pasted Xavier to [[(({2))}]]. Please do not move articles by copying and pasting them because it splits the article's history, which is needed for attribution and is helpful in many other ways. If there is an article that you cannot move yourself using the move link at the top of the page, follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Requested moves. Also, if there are any other articles that you copied and pasted, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Cut and paste move repair holding pen. Thank you, The Evil Spartan 21:58, 29 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Evil Spartan 21:58, 29 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Hello – thanks for the message. Cut-and-paste moves are especially difficult to fix when a dab page was made from the original. You can view the step-by-step process here, but the CliffsNotes version is that when we admins merge the histories, first we have to delete the whole thing, then we undelete certain revisions. To do that, we have to go through by hand to see which page version belongs with what article, then check a box next to each one. In Xavier's case, the history was somewhere around 150 revisions – but fortunately, it was made into a dab page rather recently, so it wasn't too terrible. If you have questions about that kind of stuff, ask me or any other admin, or just wave the ol' ((helpme)) flag. And remember – very few things around here get screwed up or deleted permanently, so don't be afraid to be bold! :-) - KrakatoaKatie 02:02, 31 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hmm, I see what you mean. I thought about moving it to List of secondary schools named after Francis Xavier, but that name's unwieldy and you'd still have to scroll through a sea of redlinks. What number of enrolled students do you think makes a high school notable enough for Wikipedia? I realize there are other ways a school can be notable, but maybe we can move the smaller schools onto Talk:St. Xavier High School until someone comes along and writes an article about them. – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 04:04, 31 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I keep watch over scrapbooking because of an incidental interest in how "ordinary" people have recorded things and used books and writing. I don't think that any of the folks who put up most of the material in the article have very much interest in a truly encyclopedic approach. Nor am I sure that there are very good secondary sources. The article on Commonplace books gets at an aspect of the subject, but scrapbooking as we think of it probably depends on the abundance of cheap paper, cheap printed material like newspapers, and, eventually, photographs; which makes Victorian England a highly likely site. I've read a bit about keeping diaries and don't find much in that literature about scrapbooking either. DCDuring 13:45, 23 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There are two or three strands that I'm aware of for going a bit farther back to understand how folks kept track of the memories of their personal lives;

• hypomnema-a classical Greek artifact/practice that reminded me of commonplace books
• diaries-typically more female
• ancient memory aids

There is a lot of literature/research on "orality," which included how ancient cultures preserved themselves. I'm still looking for evidence of the first personal to-do list. DCDuring 18:16, 24 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the feedback :) Propaniac 19:00, 24 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi there. You've been doing some really awesome work here - I took a peek :) Would you be interested in the Veropedia project; fixing and improving articles for upload to vero? If you're interested in an account there, just let me know and I can sort it out for you! - Alison ^❤ 01:35, 9 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This edit seems a very bad choice. I've changed it to [[statistical survey|survey]]. -- Michael Hardy (talk) 22:12, 16 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No problem. See my answer here - SlackerMom (talk) 21:37, 26 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

SlackerMom: noticed you recently connected a link from the two Bathurst 24 Hour races to this driver. Can you confirm this American driver raced these Australian races? There was an Australian based driver with that name and I do not believe it to be the same person. --Falcadore (talk) 11:13, 28 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nope, I cannot confirm that. I linked to Chris Smith (driver) based on assumption only. I have been trying to remove links to Chris Smith, which is a disambiguation page, and I'm sure I often make mistakes. There are apparently far more Chris Smith's in the world than anyone could hope to keep straight, so I appreciate your catching this one. There a few options to correct this. We could: 1-delink Chris Smith in the Bathurst 24 Hour race articles (better then linking to the wrong person), 2-create a redlink such as Chris Smith (Australian driver), or something similar, if we think an article should/will someday exist for this person. What do you think? SlackerMom (talk) 13:07, 28 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't see your recent edits to the above as improving. Rather they seem to complicate it. Christ Church Grammar School for instance is not a church. You are changing format that is used for most POWdis pages. Before I undo your edits, I would like to discuss this with you and try to reach some consensus. clariosophic 20:23, 3 December 2007 (UTC) As a citizen of the Republic of Ireland, I can tell you that Christ Church Cathedral, Dublin is not in the UK. clariosophic 20:25, 3 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oooh, I am so sorry! Of course, you're right, we'll have to move that one! My mistake. Thanks for not reverting...I'd much rather work together with someone who cares about the page. I did put the Grammar School link under Educational Institutions, rather than churches, although you may have looked at an intermediate edit, so that should solve that one. I haven't worked on POWdis pages before, although I have done lots of regular dab pages, so please let me know how else you think this could be improved. My reason for the changes to begin with was that the page was far too long and unwieldy and contained too many red links. I also am trying to improve the related pages Christchurch (disambiguation) and Christ Church Cathedral, although I haven't done much to those yet. Do you have much experience with the POWdis pages? I do have some questions. SlackerMom 20:42, 3 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for your reply. I've been trying to simplify these pages by merging them when possible so that there's one disambig page for most variants. For churches in the United States, it's important to separate them by States. Many of them are listed in the National Register of Historic Places and are linked from the article lists for the states and and D.C. Individual listings there will show blue because they are linked to the disambig page. Someone looking for an article will go to the disambig page and if they want to create an article, that page should give them some help on how to name it. If redlinks are a problem, it's better on the disambig page just to delete the links and show them in black. Washington, D.C., for example. I created both articles. There are 2 Christ Churches, both Episcopal, in Washington. The List of Registered Historic Places in the District of Columbia originally just had Christ Church listed. Whoever put it in did not realize that there are 2 churches by that name in D.C. Another problem in the Us is multiple cities with the same name in different states, so XYZ place of worship Springfield won't tell you much because many states have a city by that name and no one of them is really better known that the others. Christ Church or Christchurch is unusual in that there are many geographical places with that name, as well as churches, cathedrals and other institutions. Thee geographical ones whould be in a separate disamig page. The cathedrals also. The schools etc, aren't that many so why not keep the here and just merge them in by location. On other names such as Church of Our Saviour, there are smaller numbers to work with and I was able to combine all the known variants into one place. Best wishes. clariosophic 21:27, 3 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OK, most of that sounds great, but here are my questions...First, this doesn't really seem to follow the guidelines for disambig pages, which are supposed to be used for navigation of existing articles, not as lists of articles that need to be created. In my opinion, those churches on the NR should be included in the list articles as red links, but should only be on the dab page if an article currently exists, or the church is mentioned in an existing article (such as Springfield, Missouri). This is the way I understand the current disambiguation page guidelines. I think the long list of U.S. state name headings is unnecessary, but basically harmless, so I don't mind if those are put back. Secondly, keeping the POWdis tag on the Christ Church page isn't really accurate since it (currently) contains five non-church entries. You said the geographical entries should be on a separate page, but what would you call it? And how would the user find it? I'm a fan of clarity, and my preference would be that there be one dab page for everything known as "Christ Church" and another dab page for everything known as "Christchurch" with no overlap (except for cross links in "See also"). Of course, we also have Christ Church Cathedral to deal with...but that's probably another day. SlackerMom 21:55, 3 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Christchurch (disambiguation) is really the geographical one. It is in the Se also section in this article. If you want to keep this one just for POWs, then let's move all the schools, hospitals, etc., to the other. Just remember that some of them are related. The civil parish in Barbados also has a church by that name in it. Christ Church Cathedral in Oxford is located on the campus of Christ Church College and is its chapel.

I understand what you're saying on policies, however, you're running into conflicts with policies and/or practices from other projects such as the NR. See List of Registered Historic Places in the District of Columbia again, which is typical of the NR lists. You'll see plenty of red. This is where the articles come from. Look at Church of the Ascension and you'll see blue.. You would think there is an article on the church in D.C., but there isn't. It's a link to the POWdis page. The task of going back and correcting every single link link that in all the NR lists would be monumental and won't probably be strongly opposed. Usually when a real article is created, they want you to pipe it. I didn't do that at the 2 Christ Churches in DC because that wasn't possible to do with only one listing there. If there had actually only been one, someone would have piped it for. So if I created the article "Church of the Ascension (Washington, D.C.)" and linked it that way in the list article, someone would surely pipe it to "Church of the Ascension (Washington, D.C.)|Church of the Ascension". On the red links in the US, I will change them to black and put a (NR) after each one with at note under the United States section listing as to what that means. If yoy want some idea of the number, look at "what links here" on a POWdis page. I'm getting tired and have to quit for a while. One addition, remember that Christchurch, New Zealand is an important place clariosophic 22:34, 3 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On Congregation Mickve Israel, I left a comment on the talk page. I'll be glad to work with you to weave the National Register listing into the article. Here is an example of where the Georgia listings in Wikipedia don't even list the congregation and the National Park service website lists it, but instead of giving the usual info, just says: "in Savannah??". If it weren't for the picture of the actual plaque on the website, I wouldn't have even bothered to check it out. As you probably know, the National register listing is important because it assures the notability of the article. clariosophic 21:45, 3 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I absolutely agree with the removal of the image. I'm biding my 24 hours before making another overhaul of the page in accordance with WP:MOSDAB (probably using this version as a base), since Abtract has accused me of 3RR violation before I remake any of my earlier edits. I just didn't want you to think that my attempts at interim cleanup were full endorsements of the poor shape the page is currently in. Cheers! -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:00, 20 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Greetings from the League of Copyeditors. Your name is listed on our members page, but we are unsure how many of the people listed there are still active contributors to the League's activities. If you are still interested in participating in the work of the League, please follow the instructions at the members page to add your name to the active members list. Once you have done that, you might want to familiarise yourself with the new requests system, which has replaced the old /proofreading subpage. As the old system is now deprecated, the main efforts of the League should be to clear the substantial backlog which still exists there. The League's services are in as high demand as ever, as evinced by the increasing backlog on our requests pages, both old and new. While FA and GA reviewers regularly praise the League's contributions to reviewed articles, we remain perennially understaffed. Fulfilling requests to polish the prose of Wikipedia's highest-profile articles is a way that editors can make a very noticeable difference to the appearance of the encyclopedia. On behalf of the League, if you do consider yourself to have left, I hope you will consider rejoining; if you consider yourself inactive, I hope you will consider returning to respond to just one request per week, or as many as you can manage. Merry Christmas and happy editing, The League of Copyeditors.

Melon‑Bot (STOP!) 18:25, 28 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey, since you were involved with the discussion on the [City High School (City, State)] issue, I was wondering what your option on this topic? --Dan Leveille^TALK 06:25, 4 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi SlackerMom: After the new system at LoCE was in place, I found it helpful to put all the instructions and my own shortcuts on my user pages for quick reference. This has worked well for me with few glitches. You're welcome to visit User:Finetooth/desk and cut-and-paste the code to your user page or anywhere you like. I feel certain that the articles you are proofreading from the old pile should be dealt with in the same way as the ones in the new pile. Glad to see you are back. I noticed that you were gone for a while. Finetooth (talk) 16:08, 16 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi there, and thanks for giving the old backlog some of the attention it deserves. I'm not entirely sure what to do with the old requests - part of me thinks that most of them are old enough to be completely worthless, but part of me feels it would be a failure on the League's part not to do something about them when we have advertised our help, and editors have in good faith requested that help. I'm going to run up a quick script soon (I'm incredibly busy with RL atm) to check through all the old requests for those that don't meet our new criteria, particularly the one about cleanup tags. I don't know how many articles that will remove. I'll have to see how many that leaves us before I get off the fence vis avis whether they should all be dumped. I am leaning towards it! Happy‑melon 19:22, 17 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

One other note: I wouldn't archive requests from WP:LOCE/P that weren't acted on - just delete them if there's a reason to deny them. If they were copyedited by the League, then of course do note that by archiving. Happy‑melon 19:28, 17 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for the comment on behalf of the League of Copyeditors. I have entered the article for a Good Article Nomination, and hopefully I can drop you a word or two to let you know of the results, so that the fine work that you'se do can truly be appreciated, not only by myself, but by those who will review the article. Thank you again, and all the editors involved in helping out!! SriMesh | talk 19:42, 18 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

		The Copyeditor's Barnstar
		For truly outstanding work in clearing the backlog at the League of Copyeditor's old requests system. Happy‑melon 11:40, 22 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, are you sure that redirecting St Agnes and St. Agnes to Saint Agnes was the right thing to do? There are at least 4 Saints called Agnes, as well as the various places, and I feel that having them link to the disambiguation page was a better arrangement. DuncanHill (talk) 13:52, 24 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm open to a discussion about it. It seemed to me, while fixing links to the dab page, that the majority were related to the primary article, but there really aren't that many links altogether, so we could change it back if you think it would be better. I think, most of the time, when an editor links St. Agnes, the intention is Saint Agnes, rather than one of the other choices, but either way is fine if you disagree. SlackerMom (talk) 13:58, 24 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In my experience, they often mean St Agnes, Cornwall - of course I do most of my editing on Cornish subjects so that may colour my view! To me, one of the advantages of having St Agnes and St. Agnes pointing to the disambig page is that it is much easier to find misdirected links from the "what links here" on the disambig page (usually quite a short list - I check it periodically) than by trawling through the much longer list at Saint Agnes. DuncanHill (talk) 14:02, 24 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yep, I can understand that. I'm happy for you to move them back. If you don't have time, I'll do it later. SlackerMom (talk) 14:06, 24 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OK cool - I should have time tonight to do them. Thanks for being so understanding - and thanks also for fixing the links I hadn't (I'm pretty good at spotting when they should point to the Cornish town, but my knowledge of saints is pretty slim!) All the best, DuncanHill (talk) 14:10, 24 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I hate it when I repeat myself redundantly--thanks for the quick fix.:-)--NapoliRoma (talk) 15:33, 28 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You're very welcome. Consider it my free gift to you as a fellow comrade. SlackerMom (talk) 17:18, 28 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, your last change to this article changed a direct link to Christ Church to one that went through a redirect. I have changed it back, since a direct link is preferable. BTW, it is supposed to be good form in See also to add {disambiguation) AFTER a link that does not include it. Best wishes. clariosophic (talk) 23:00, 29 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Undid Clariosphic's undo. No, direct links are not preferable. Please see WP:D#Links to disambiguation pages for using (disambiguation) redirects, and WP:R#NOTBROKEN for not preferring direct links "just because" in general. -- JHunterJ (talk) 23:40, 29 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, I guess you don't need me! Thanks JHJ. Clariosophic, I agree about adding (disambiguation) after a link that does not include it, but as you can see, the redirect is better here. It helps dab editors like me to keep the disambiguation page free of unintentional links. SlackerMom (talk) 13:25, 30 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Anna (name), and it appears to be very similar to another wikipedia page: Anna. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 13:21, 31 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello SlackerMom. In light of your "interest" in the Jesus bloodline article, would you be interested in copyediting the Priory of Sion article? --Loremaster (talk) 19:54, 2 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'll see what I can do over the next week or so. That's the best I can promise right now, so if you are looking for quicker work, I apologize. I squeeze copyediting into the small spaces in my real life (which isn't always the best way to copyedit). I also assume you are looking to nominate this article, and while I'm a crack proofreader, I don't know if my criticisms will be as "editorial" as might be needed. I'll give it a shot. SlackerMom (talk) 20:26, 2 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Cool. --Loremaster (talk) 20:52, 2 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've radically improved the Jesus bloodline article so you might also want to take a look at that again. --Loremaster (talk) 20:15, 3 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've answered your questions on the Talk:Priory of Sion page. --Loremaster (talk) 19:21, 10 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank for doing a good job copyediting the Priory of Sion article. :) Can you take a quick look at the Jesus bloodline article again? --Loremaster (talk) 19:06, 11 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for disambiguating penia. Looks much better now. TwoMightyGods^Persuasion_Necessity 17:49, 9 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Batten (surname), and it appears to be very similar to another wikipedia page: Batten (disambiguation). It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 13:36, 13 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Howdy, I noticed you removed the ((hndis)) from a stubby disambiguation page, Lorena (name), but did not remove its disambig links, nor give it a new category. What sort of page do you think it is? All the "name" pages I have seen are disambiguation pages. I do agree that Lorena (disambiguation) more than suffices for the disambig purpose of the page, but I am not sure what the other purpose of the (name) page is. JackSchmidt (talk) 16:48, 13 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No problem. Thanks for categorizing it. You've fixed lots of disambigs on my watchlist over the past few weeks. Thanks, again! JackSchmidt (talk) 16:54, 13 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Partly due to a dipuste, I slightly expanded and improved the Jesus bloodline article. Could you please take another look and give it the League's "seal of approval" if possible after you're done? --Loremaster (talk) 04:49, 14 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Loremaster, due to the continued edits to this article, I'd prefer to wait a bit before another copyedit to be sure it's stable. I'll keep an eye on it, but feel free to remind me. SlackerMom (talk) 14:13, 17 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OK. I will let you know. --Loremaster (talk) 22:41, 18 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OK, I don't have the time or energy to join the fray over this article, but my observation is that you are working very hard to do a good job on it and to keep it NPOV and balanced. I really can't figure out why your adversary is being so difficult, and you certainly haven't remotely done anything against Wikipedia policy that I can see. I just thought you could use a word of encouragement. SlackerMom (talk) 21:41, 18 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you. User:Wfgh66 is Paul Smith, a well-known debunker of the Priory of Sion hoax. Although he is a very erudite researcher whose contributions have been invaluable to many of the articles related to the Priory of Sion, he is not only a grumpy curmudgeon unwilling to accept any claim that challenges the status quo but he is extremely overzealous. However, I can tolerate this personal flaw if it wasn't for the fact that he is compelled to needlessly hammer his point in the head of readers. Ultimately, he needs to relax and realize that I have been helping his project, not hurting it. --Loremaster (talk) 22:41, 18 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:Wfgh66 has been blocked indefinitely from Wikipedia. If you are still interested, you can now copyedit the Jesus bloodline article when you find the time. --Loremaster (talk) 22:01, 24 July 2008 (UTC)--Loremaster (talk) 22:01, 24 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you so much. I knew it needed to be blown up, but I hadn't had time. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 17:28, 20 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ok I know. Don't you hate it when you get the orange bar and think 'oh crap, what did I do?' This was what the article looked like when I found it. Glad it got listed appropriately to be fixed. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 17:53, 20 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think that's always the case, have to hit rock bottom before they claw their way back up/ I'm guilty of making less than perfect disambig pages but I take comfort in the fact that they're never that bad. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 17:59, 20 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, you commented before on my cleanups etc and I was wondering if I could ask your advice on 2 sites with different problems. One is Nick Douglas, I left it like that but I really think both the names are not notable and then that just leaves a blank page. Would ((db-empty)) be suitable? Or is there a better procedure for dab pages? The second is Charles Foster (disambiguation). I've had cleanups reverted twice now so I was wondering what the next step is?

I hope you don't mind me asking, I assume you have run up against these sorts of problems before. Thanks in advance Tassedethe (talk) 13:40, 1 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for that. I think I'll just have to start taking deep breaths/counting to 10 etc when people revert my edits :) Tassedethe (talk) 14:06, 1 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for weighing in on my issues with this page. I took a Wiki-break for the holiday weekend so didn't see your comments until now--I guess I'll wait another day for the other editor to comment, in case he was also on a break, and then undo his changes if he's still silent. But I appreciate your input. Propaniac (talk) 15:18, 7 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your changes are a great improvement. Most of the Saturnini listed there were never going to have their own articles, but if they end up getting one they can be added back easily. Good work.--Cúchullain ^t/c 16:22, 8 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, I see what you've done, but the link you provided was a book *about* the Dubs. That's different than saying that "The Dubs" is a nickname for the Dublin GAA Gaelic Football team. If you look at the Dublin GAA page, you'll see reference to the nickname in the info box. Not sure if I'm being clear... --Bardcom (talk) 18:18, 9 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Looks fine. Thanks. --Bardcom (talk) 20:20, 9 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. You redirected Crash pad to Bouldering mat a few days ago, with the edit summary of "change to redirect - only usage of this term in WP". I was linked to Crash pad from UATWM and I'm fairly certain that article is not talking about safety measures to use when climbing rocks ;-). Curious, I looked at the page history and saw your redirect and I'd have to say I'm not so sure about Bouldering mat being the "only usage", given that 4 out of the 5 results for links to Crash pad are for subculture-related articles, rather than climbing (which comprises the remaining result). Given this, I think the redirect should be undone but thought I would run the suggestion past you first. What do you think? Best, ChaoticReality 13:38, 10 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, I ruminated on that for a while before I did it, and I guess I decided there wasn't another good article to include on a dab page. Looking at it today, however, it seems that we could make it a dab page and include a link to Punk house as well as Bouldering mat. Do you think that would cover it properly? SlackerMom (talk) 13:45, 10 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Whoops. I was going to create the page and then leave a note here that I thought it would be fine and that I'd made the disambig page but you e/c'ed me. I've used my version, which is almost identical except for slightly different wording and with the categories from both Punk house and Bouldering mat included on the page (I think this is correct). Best ChaoticReality 14:59, 10 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's perfect except for the categories. Disambiguation pages don't get tagged with categories (there are a few exceptions, which don't apply here). You can pull them off, or I'll do it later. I wish all my conflicts were as easy to solve! Thanks! SlackerMom (talk) 15:04, 10 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ah right, sorry. From what I read on the MoS, I thought Categories did get added (although I couldn't find the guideline when I went to doublecheck, so may have just misread something). I'll go and remove the categories now. I've also been through all the pages that link to it and updated the links to point to the right page instead of the disambig page. I agree with you about the conflicts (although I wouldn't call this a conflict as to me that implies fighting and we didn't :-)). Best, ChaoticReality 15:07, 10 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Demetrius (disambiguation), and it appears to be very similar to another wikipedia page: Demetrius. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 15:34, 17 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have reverted some of your cleanup on this dab page, as it created links to redirects where we're supposed to avoid same, and also it did not maintain logical flow i.e. by indicating that the various TV shows and films stemmed from the same source. 23skidoo (talk) 01:52, 22 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for taking the time to let me know! Actually redirects on dab pages are not deprecated, although I don't think it's a critical point on this page. I also disagree that the logical flow as you have it is necessary in such a short list. I think it's pretty easy to follow, but again, I don't think it's a critical point. I will, however, build on your revert by removing the extra blue links. Dab pages should have only one blue link per line per MOS:DAB. SlackerMom (talk) 12:46, 22 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I was instructed via the MOS to include links of this nature. Has Wikipedia policy changed with regards to linking on disambiguation pages? The last time I created a dab page I was told I had to wikilink all names, etc. mentioned as well. 23skidoo (talk) 19:30, 22 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oooh, yes, the guidelines have definitely changed. Disambiguation pages do not follow the conventions of MOS, but rather MOS:DAB, which is different in some key ways. The main difference you've stumbled upon is that numerous wikilinks are seriously discouraged. We aim for one blue link per line, with very rare exceptions. SlackerMom (talk) 20:47, 22 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I noticed that you removed the cleanup tag I put on Red Clay (disambiguation page). It seemed clear to me that many of the entries did not qualify per MOS:DAB (examples to exclude), as the disambiguated element was only a portion of those links. Are there specifics to your different read in this case? ENeville (talk) 01:03, 28 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You know, to tell you the truth, I thought about that for a minute before I removed the tag, and I suspected that might have been the reason the tag was added. Following this guideline strictly would probably remove all but the first entry on this page, which would mean there wouldn't really be any reason to have the page. In my opinion, this page is currently harmless since the list is so short. I generally "enforce" the guideline on pages that tend to get overlong, and am somewhat more lenient about it on short pages. Also, if you'll notice, there is an exception listed to the guideline that encourages inclusion if there is any debate about an entry being known simply as "Red Clay". I don't know if these entries are all known as Red Clay or not, but I didn't feel it was worth the research since the page was orderly and minimal. I'm trying to encourage editors to use the cleanup tag only for dab pages that are really a mess. See Category talk:Disambiguation pages in need of cleanup for my reasons. SlackerMom (talk) 02:29, 28 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I read your comments there and think that I understand your concerns. My concern is that by default people learn the rules of Wikipedia based on what they observe, and appearance of entries such as at Red Clay seems a common problem that self-perpetuates. Given that there will always be pages in need of cleanup, to one degree or another, it seems the issue to address from the perspective of patrolling the list of tagged pages is one of assessing priorities. Perhaps the ((disambig polish)) idea would work, though that might only bisect a gradient into two gradients. I dunno. Anyways, since as you noted only one entry on the page currently is worthy of inclusion, it seems to me the most correct edit would be to move Red Clay (Freddie Hubbard album) to Red Clay. A next-best kludge might be to redirect from Red Clay to Red Clay (Freddie Hubbard album). In this case, I figured that leaving the DAB page, but marking it as in need of cleanup, would anticipate the creation of another "Red Clay" page for DAB linking, so that a proper edit could be implemented, but indicate in the mean time that the current state not be emulated on other DAB pages. Perhaps this is a case study that things should simply be done properly from the beginning... (?) ENeville (talk) 23:34, 30 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

*Much blushing* That is such a nice thing for you to say, SlackerMom - thank you so much for the truly lovely compliments! You've set me smiling for a while with that; thank you.

Along those same lines, especially with many of the recent discussions, I am similarly glad to see your well-thought-out thoughts on disambiguation. There can be some pretty crazy ideas out there, and from what I've seen (including the thread just above this one on your talk page, which impressed me with your reasonable and rational response), you help keep things stable. It certainly is a pleasure to edit with you. And since you mentioned, it I couldn't resist something pretty and cheerful. :) -- Natalya 15:52, 29 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Indeed! It's always most enjoyable to work with editors who you respect. -- Natalya 16:35, 29 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I realize that you have changed the Liza Jacqueline article into a redirect. Liza Jacqueline and Jacqueline Pillon are two different people, last I checked on IMDB (see here).Kitty53 (talk) 21:36, 2 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry for the slow response; I was on vacation. You are right and I have changed it back to a stub. If you have a chance, it would be good to put the IMDB reference on the page as a citation. SlackerMom (talk) 14:09, 11 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I noticed that you made some changes to Parsi‎. Please refer to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Parsi_people#The_word_.22Parsi.22 (Gta40 (talk) 17:10, 12 August 2008 (UTC))Reply[reply]

Thanks for the link. I understand what you are trying to accomplish, but the Persian peoples article does not contain any reference to this alleged usage of "Parsi". It only refers to the Zoroastrian Parsi people. You need to add this usage to the article before it is appropriate to include on the dab page. It doesn't count that you discussed it on the talk page - you have to put it in the article. I'll leave the link on the dab page for now, but it's not going to stay there indefinitely without a change to the Persian peoples article. SlackerMom (talk) 17:36, 12 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

All right, that is understandable, thank you. I put a message on the Persian peoples talk page and I'll see what happens. (Gta40 (talk) 00:22, 13 August 2008 (UTC))Reply[reply]

Always a pleasure to help. Been meaning to ask, why did you initially remove the redirect Avatar (Avatar: The Last Airbender) when WP:PIPING encourages such use? And what was wrong with the layout:

• The main character in Avatar: The Last Airbender media:
  • Avatar (Avatar: The Last Airbender) or Aang

I used Akuma as precedence. Thoughts? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 18:37, 18 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry, I guess the redirect is fine - just old habit. I adjusted the layout because I think that the way you did it, both lines linguistically referred to the character, rather than having one line refer to the series, and then one line for the character. It makes sense to me that Avatar: The Last Airbender deserves a line of its own without just leading to the next link. In other words, I don't think the first entry should actually be a description of the second entry. Does that make sense? SlackerMom (talk) 18:47, 18 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I personally think my layout was better, no offense. Similar edits have also been done to Shadow (disambiguation) and Kamehameha. Would it bother you that much if I can just partially rv that bit? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 18:55, 18 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not offended - let's talk about it. Doesn't "Avatar" refer to the series as well as the character? SlackerMom (talk) 19:05, 18 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In one context, yes, but the link is masked in a certain manner that you can tell it refers to the character. I also think "media" replaces "series" quite nicely, given "media" covers all forms of the franchise while "series" may only refer to the show, games and/or comics. What do you think? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 19:41, 18 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't mind the use of the word "media", but this first link goes to an article that is about the series in particular. If we think about the fact that we are trying to disambiguate these two articles, so a user doesn't have to click through to both of them to see which one he wants, then I think it should be clear that one link is about the series (or media), and the other is about the character. There may be another way to word it to show the connection (I'm open to suggestions), but I don't think the link to the series should start with "The main character in..." I think that entry should start with the actual link (as is preferred here). SlackerMom (talk) 20:00, 18 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Could you provide a demonstration of what you mean? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 20:10, 18 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am describing the way the page stands right now. It is clear that one link refers to the series and one refers to the character. SlackerMom (talk) 20:16, 18 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Way I see it, you're only ok with changing "series" to "media" but you're not ok with my proposal? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 20:50, 18 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You are correct, I do not think your proposal is the best way. It is not as clear as the current version and is therefore not an improvement. I have explained my reasons, but I have not heard yours. Why do you think it is not acceptable as it now stands? SlackerMom (talk) 21:06, 18 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

All I'm asking for is consistency with other dabs, it just looks strange IMO. What would you do to Kamehameha and Shadow (disambiguation) then? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 22:29, 18 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sess, your search for consistency sometimes goes beyond custom. You are the one who made the edits to Kamehameha and Shadow (disambiguation) and you are likely the only person on Wikipedia who would see any comparison between those pages and this one. I can barely see the comparison you're talking about. If "consistency" is the only argument you are presenting for a your version, then I feel it is a weak one. In editing Wikipedia, we strive to balance many competing priorities, and while consistency is certainly a goal, it does not override clarity, especially if you must work against the guidelines of WP:MOSDAB to achieve that "consistency". SlackerMom (talk) 12:46, 19 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Can we conclude with this edit then? And would changing "American animated television series" to "American media franchise" be best? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 17:30, 20 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yep, that edit looks fine, and the change you suggest would be fine as well. SlackerMom (talk) 17:33, 20 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you. Hope we can work sometime together again ;) Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 17:38, 20 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's rare to get a message unless someone's annoyed, so I really appreciate that. It helps me keep going with my obsession to know I'm doing an OK job! Boleyn (talk) 19:41, 21 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for clarifying the lead so deftly. Cheers. Alastair Haines (talk) 03:07, 25 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, you're welcome. I thought there was some unnecessary confusion - hope it helps. SlackerMom (talk) 11:55, 25 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sure does, I was too close to it to see it, and it would seem others have simply skimmed it or not made the time to make the fix. All the best to you in your Wiki contributions. Alastair Haines (talk) 12:26, 25 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You recently reverted my addition of the Lawful Evil alignment for Dungeons and Dragons to the LE disambiguation article with the reason given as "entries should be commonly known as LE". The Lawful Evil alignment, along with all Dungeons and Dragons alignments, is commonly referred to as its initialism (Chaotic Good is CG, Lawful Neutral is LN, and so on), so I have reverted your change back. --Muna (talk) 18:34, 4 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm happy to take your word for that and will leave the link on the page, however, it would be a good idea to include that information in the article you are pointing to so that future editors will not remove it from the page. See my explanation on Talk:LE for further info. SlackerMom (talk) 19:50, 4 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I will now undo your edits citing WP:BRD. The guideline gives no such preference. That, and the fact that you took off most of the wiktionary entries for no reason. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 16:06, 5 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just for the record, I'm not one of those cyberstalkers (if that's what you're thinking). Those three dabs are on my watchlist, and have been there for quite some time. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 16:18, 5 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No, Sess the guidelines don't show a preference, they show BOTH options as equally valid. Which means you have no justification for your reversions. If you want to cite WP:BRD, then let's go, but we're going to discuss it on the talk pages, not here, for the benefit of other editors. I'll see you at Talk:OB, Talk:DK, and Talk:SM. SlackerMom (talk) 16:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Why did you undo the edits? I cited WP:BRD, yet you went ahead and blindly reverted me anyway. Please revert yourself. Once this is done, then I can discuss the matter in the individual talk pages. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 03:18, 6 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dude, you can't just "cite WP:BRD" so your edit gets to stand. You are the one who reverted with no explanation to start with. And I did not "blindly" revert your edits. I have explained my reasons every time. You have not explained your reasons YET. So cite WP:BRD all you want, but you aren't DISCUSSING anything. And that's the whole point of the BRD process. We can't come to any consensus if you won't participate in a discussion. SlackerMom (talk) 01:28, 7 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Regarding [1], is there a guideline saying the abbreviation should be mentioned in the article to get listed on a disambiguation page? For many of them it's easy to verify with Google on CC combined with the full name that the abbreviation is in use outside Wikipedia. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:23, 8 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It is not an official guideline, but it is an accepted practice. There are times when the consensus is to include some links that don't have the abbreviation in the article. The overriding principle is that articles should only be listed on this page if they are "commonly known" as CC, meaning that someone would type "CC" into the search box and expect to go there. We can't list everything that could possibly be known as CC or the list would get outrageously long. I usually encourage editors to use their Google hits to verify (and cite) the use of the abbrevition in the article itself, then it is an easy matter to list it on the dab page. I will happily admit that it's very possible that in paring down the page, I removed some links that have a good reason to be there. If you think so, bring it up on Talk:CC and we'll hammer it out. SlackerMom (talk) 17:37, 8 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think I will just add CC to some of the articles when I get time and then readd those entries to CC. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:44, 8 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Re your implicit question at WP:MoSDab#Entries to pages that are Dabs, i'm sure you know how create the Rdr "half" of a shortcut, so i assume you haven't bothered (as i also had not!) to look (at, say, Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Set index articles) for something like

((shortcut|WP:SETINDEX))

which is the sharing-it-with-others half of the shortcut creation. Or did i get confused abt what you meant?
Could it be you're interested in the HTML magic of making a target for links at a point that isn't a heading (which i think may be desirable in the case under discussion)? I think i can do it from memory. I start by using the "Wiki markup" flavor of the "insert" menu to insert

<span class="plainlinks"></span>

Then i throw away or replace parts of it, instead of trying to type anything but letters:

<span id="DemoLink"></span>

(in which, note well, i retained the crucial slash char that is handily there before the throw-away second "span"; you'll tear your hair out debugging the first time you forget & remove the slash too) and put the un-nowiki'd version of it  here with the result that










from way down the page (scroll this to the top of your window before clicking, to prove what i'm saying) there's now, from way down here, effectively a link to the preceding occurrence of the word "here". Yeah, that should work (once saved), 'cz it worked in preview when i took the page name out of the link.
I learned to do that for the sake of Dabs: the lk for a fic-char shouldn't go to the top of the work-including-the-char article (or even the top of the list-of-chars-from one), but to the first relevant paragraph, which often has no heading. No one but we happy few understands the markup, so it's good to put a comment next to it, listing the article(s) that will link to the spot.
Thanks for your input, and hope i haven't bored you in return!
--Jerzy•t 05:40, 12 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey, thanks, Jerzy! I didn't even know you could do that! SlackerMom (talk) 17:26, 12 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm glad to know List of rivers in Estonia exists, but it tells me (without looking at the articles in the 0th thru 5th percentiles, which could be even further enlightening) that this one is probably between the 6th and 99th percentiles of notability among the rivers of this country with 0.02% of the world's population and 0.05% of its GDP, and likely to be non-notable for at least another century.
More to the point, i generally hide inside comments (as i had with this one), pending development of a stub from the hints, any Dab entry whose target doesn't seem to me to have more than a dict def -- and a bare entry on a list is a lot less than a dict def. My argument, which i sometimes include to diss a specific entry or article passage, is that anyone who came looking for an encyc article entitled, say Pada (and referring to the river) would justly feel that a Dab lk'g to, say List of rivers in Estonia, had unreasonably wasted their time: the time to follow one lk, and do whatever they chose (scrolling, typing "Pa" into the browser search box and checking to see "match case" was checked, whatever) to find Pada on the page. (I also don't like "See", but never mind.)
I've noticed your frequency of Dab-CU-ing Dab's i've tagged, your attention to guidelines, and what i take to be a good measure of common sense, so i'm uncomfortable critiquing you at all, and the last thing i'd want is for this to sound like a User Warning! You may have noticed (among my many weaknesses) that i haven't tried hard to keep completely up to date as the Two Great Guideline Pages of Dab Editing develop, so "(I don't want to go on a rant, but ....) But that's just my opinion, i could be wrong." And no doubt any "retort" you have will be valuable.
Thanks for all the fixes.
--Jerzy•t 10:18, 17 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Re this note -- thanks, truly. Working with disambiguations was originally my outlet for idle editing without having to worry about edit wars; how little did I suspect... :-) But you are great to work with! (Expanding from earlier -- tangentially, my home power is out going on four days now, thanks to Hurricane Ike, so I'm not as plugged in as I normally am.) -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:25, 17 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, you're very welcome. Working with disambiguations is my outlet for idle editing without too much time commitment. I'm occasionally tempted to put more energy into writing and proofreading, but getting that involved would not be good for my attempt at "balance" in my life. I love seeing you comment on tricky questions, because you have such long experience here, and I rarely disagree. Some people just seem to love drama, I guess. Thankfully, Wikipedia is a big place! (Oh, and good luck with your power situation.) SlackerMom (talk) 14:34, 17 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The article Local churches and Local church (disambiguation) is been attacked/vandalized by the User:Ad.minster; furthermore, I do not understand several of the new edits such as how come the "Sunday Nights" correlates with the Lord's table meeting. His edits disqualifies all of the previous citation but then I can see the addition in the "controversy section" without providing a citation, or even a template, strange, .. !!

There are some questions to be discussed: Where is the advertisement? Which links are supportive; which links are of the Local churches? Where is this local church? I would ask for the other editors of this page to look into his edits and bring a NPOV in the article and also somehow to reach the general consensus. I have reverted couple of vandalism earlier but this time it seems that discussing the subject might be able to solve the problem among the editors. Thanks, HopeChrist (talk) 22:19, 24 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My work on these articles has been limited to some cleanup on the dab page, which is currently in good shape. I have not found Ad.minster to be acting as a vandal. I suggest you continue working out your editing differences on the Talk:Local churches, which I know you are trying to do. HopeChrist, judging from your user page, you are fairly invested in the topic covered in the Local churches article, which means you should be very cautious about your involvement. It will be difficult for you to maintain a NPOV. Remember that WP is not a platform for a "perfect" presentation of information about your (or anyone's) religion. Chances are excellent that you will not be completely happy with the final result of the current editing work on this article, but that's the nature of consensus editing, and the nature of WP. SlackerMom (talk) 12:55, 25 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your contributions there look very good in my humble opinion. Thank you! Best wishes, Ad.minster (talk) 16:34, 25 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I appreciate your concern and feedback. You are right. Thanks, HopeChrist (talk) 18:21, 25 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Good luck to you guys, and let me know if I can help. SlackerMom (talk) 18:27, 25 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I pretty much agree with these changes, except I would like to know why you modified the see also section to be a hatnote. Doesn't WP:NAMB have specific requirements for this? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 17:15, 29 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Right you are, Sesshomaru. I was trying to make it look less like a dab page, but it would be more correct to leave that link in a see also section. SlackerMom (talk) 17:18, 29 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Why did I remove the template? Because I read what it said and followed its instructions. If you feel the template is erroneous (in that it no longer reflects the recommended procedure), correct it. If you feel the procedure ought to be changed, raise the issue on the relevant Talk page, whatever it may be. But do not blame people for following instructions. Urhixidur (talk) 14:52, 30 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I apologize for the tone of my edit summary. I have addressed my concerns on the appropriate talk page. SlackerMom (talk) 14:54, 30 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi there. Just a note to say that disambiguation pages are nominated for deletion at WP:AFD, in the same forum as articles, because they are still in the mainspace. Best wishes, PeterSymonds (talk) 15:52, 30 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've added a description of the special linear Lie algebra sl and put the line back in to SL. Richard Pinch (talk) 17:59, 30 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you. Looks good. SlackerMom (talk) 19:17, 30 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Sosicles (poet), and it appears to be very similar to another wikipedia page: Sosicles. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 20:05, 2 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks. This bot is wicked fast. SlackerMom (talk) 20:11, 2 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Saw your reversions, and thought it was worth a discussion.

I've just spent the last couple of months cleaning up all the incoming links to the disambiguation pages that include radio and TV stations - well, all but about 115 after several thousand edits. As I was doing this, I noticed that there was an appalling lack on consistency amongst the pages. However, the most useful pages had certain properties in common:

• they included the radio frequency or TV channel on which the station broadcasts
• they included the specific city to which the station is licensed, rather than just saying that it was "in" a certain city
• where they included historical stations, they indicated when the call sign had been used

So, as I've been doing the last touch-ups of the clean-up, I've been going back and trying to put that information in so that there's at least some consistency. I've also been removing excess blue links and punctuation, per the MOSDAB.

I kind of look at it like the example given in the MOS for "John Adams". You could just list the four different people with that name and their disambigutor, along with the year of birth and death, and probably clear up most potential for confusion. However, adding the small amount of narrative afterward makes it that much easier to determine which is which. For radio stations, the fact that a station is in the Miami market is useful, but the fact that it's licensed to a certain city, that it broadcasts on a certain frequency, or that it used that call sign at a certain time, similarly adds to the clarity. Especially on the east coast of the U.S., call signs get swapped around like a kid's baseball cards. In fact, it's even more useful for a set of entries that are all radio stations, whereas it's less likely that the individual John Adamses have anything in common other than their name.

What do you think? Mlaffs (talk) 17:03, 6 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for your explanation. I appreciate the work you've been doing and understand the drive for consistency. I am not one to strip all useful information from dab page descriptions, but the ones you used struck me as a bit lengthy. Descriptions on dab pages generally ought to contain only enough information to help the user distinguish between the links on that page (not between all radio stations, for example). Therefore, I think it is appropriate to include more information on WINZ, since there are two stations listed there - in the same city, no less. But on WINS there is only one radio station listed, so there really isn't a need for more description. Anyone who types in "WINS" looking for the station will easily find it whether we include the frequency or not. I would agree that pages which include multiple radio and TV stations should have more information (of the type you suggest) to make choosing between them easier, but still it should be limited to the amount of information necessary to help distinguish them, not simply to make them consistent with all other radio stations listed on all other dab pages. I also don't think very many people make the distinction between the market a station serves, and the city where it is licensed, but I could be wrong. SlackerMom (talk) 21:08, 6 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Something about it still doesn't "feel" right. Can you take a shot at it? Inclusively, I can't tell if it should be in the given name category. Any thoughts? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 17:17, 7 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, I'm not sure if it's better or not, but I added a few links and got rid of most of the headings. It doesn't seem like there are enough links to need them, really. I did leave the people separate because they probably don't really have to be there. I doubt any of them are known simply as Yoshi, which is the usual criteria. On small pages, like this one, I tend to be lenient about lists of people. If the page starts to get too long, I usually get more strict about it. See what you think. SlackerMom (talk) 17:42, 7 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Guess it's fine for now, though I might do a little tweaking later. Thanks for the help. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 17:50, 7 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No problem. Tweak away. SlackerMom (talk) 17:52, 7 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Why create this page? The disambiguation page is already at Ramsay. Parenthetical context is added to a title only if a topic is displaced from its plain title. —Centrx→talk • 02:44, 1 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please see the reason at WP:DABNAME. Specifically, the portion of the guideline that reads: It is also acceptable to create a page at "Term ABC (disambiguation)" that redirects to a disambiguation page at "Term ABC". This type of redirect can be used to indicate deliberate links to the disambiguation page. SlackerMom (talk) 14:55, 3 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey. You misunderstood something :) -- Fullstop (talk) 21:52, 3 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry. I didn't see an explanation. I have answered on the talk page. SlackerMom (talk) 21:55, 3 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I checked the dab style guide; it says that even though the dab templates add cats automatically, it's OK to add another style like Category:Given names to a dab page where appropriate. Frederica is devoted partly but not solely to given names, so I thought it was appropriate there. (In fact, the style guide gave me the idea.) If we were to create Frederica (given name) and move content, then the cat would have to go, of course. Seem OK to you? — ℜob C. alias ᴀʟᴀʀoʙ 22:26, 3 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, actually, that's fine with me. Sorry for the quick delete. I'm in the habit of pulling them off automatically and I often get carried away. SlackerMom (talk) 22:29, 3 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

For the record, i do think that Rdrs on Dab pages are a lousy idea, bcz they affront the Principle of least astonishment. But per the guidelines i let them stand, unless they scream IAR at me.
In the case where you reverted me, summarizing

why is this a terrible link via redirect? Redirects are not deprecated on dab pages when they match the dabbed term, which this one does

i probably mentioned the fact it was a Rdr bcz i was grumbling to myself abt the reliance on Rdrs contributing to carelessness, or i ambiguously invited association of "terrible" with "Rdr", where i probably intended closer to "terrible link (via redirect)". I could just as well called it a terrible description, and it sounds like you missed the fact, or my intended point, that The Draft Rdrs not to Conscription but to Conscription in the United States.
I might have done a better job, instead of replacing that lk with

* Draft, conscription for military service

by adding that entry, and considering The Draft separately. In which case, i'd have probably left it as a Rdr, in compliance with the (stupid) guideline, but clarified it as

* The Draft, conscription in the United States

On the other hand, it's possible i said to myself -- even tho it's probably harmless to assume that "The Draft" refers to the US draft, since i think it's been decades longer since other English-speaking countries had one -- that a reader who types "draft" because they read "the draft" is one who doesn't realize that "draft" and "the draft" have different meanings (different to the extent i was just acknowledging: if they realized that, they'd have typed "the draft" instead, and not reached the Dab. And in that case, i'd have reasoned (on the knowledge or belief, i don't recall, that "conscription" lists Conscription in the United States as a See also) that they'd be unastonished by the more general article, and get to the US draft efficiently, without our cluttering the Dab page with an entry that will probably never be useful.
So, without assuming that i've convinced you, but with the thot that you may be too bored with the subject to change it again even if you think i've described the situation correctly, i'm counter-reverting, in the hope that you'll recognize that i do so without prejudice to your next preference (and that your further change to it will be accepted by me, without hard feelings).
Best,
--Jerzy•t 07:07, 6 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Jerzy, you make me smile. My edit summary was a true question, not a jab, so thank you for your response. In deference to your thoughtfulness on the issue (which I do not mock), I will accept your version. I personally like using redirects, but I appreciate that not everyone does, and I also appreciate that there are several ways to skin cats, especially on WP. Peace. SlackerMom (talk) 13:08, 6 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hmm. I think i may be irony-impaired enuf to forget to weigh whether an ambiguous question might be ironic! (Perhaps a good thing here, where physical harm can't result from looking gutless.) In any case: Back at you! [smile]
--Jerzy•t 03:13, 7 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. Would you mind having a look at these dabs? I don't want to get involved in keep reerting people's changes, especialy a regular contributor like pdf, but some of the entries in the see also section seems silly to me. Thanks, Boleyn2 (talk) 06:44, 7 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The "See also" sections look a little bloated to me, but I'm not sure I want to get involved in a war over it either (it could be worse). I'll ponder it over the weekend and see what I think on Monday. SlackerMom (talk) 21:34, 7 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Having exactly one navigable blue link is not a categorical rule. In this case, "complexity theory" and "imaginary number" are highly relevant and would themselves warrant separate entries on the same page if it were logical to organize them so. Also, changing links to point to redirects here misleads the reader. "Complex algebra" is not "an element of a field of sets"; and a "mimicry complex" is not "mimicry" or even merely an instance of "mimicry". Blindly fixing every disambiguation page in a set format, which is not even required by Wikipedia:Disambiguation or the Manual of Style, impairs the usefulness of the disambiguation page, impedes the reader, and sometimes leads to downright false listings. —Centrx→talk • 09:30, 9 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Having exactly one navigable blue link is most definitely a WP:MOSDAB rule. While we certainly may ignore it if it helps the page, I don't think you have shown that it does on Complex. Please remember that this is not a page about the concept of "complex", it is a directional page for users who have typed in the word "complex". It should not contain informational content beyond what is necessary to direct them to the article they were seeking. This is not an educational page, it is a directional page. Very technically, there should be no links here that weren't synonymous with the word "complex". Let's look at your changes individually:

1. - Mimicry or Mimicry complex - Both link to the same article, from which I quote, "...mimicry occurs when a group of organisms, the mimics, have evolved to share common perceived characteristics with another group, the models, through the selective action of a signal-receiver or dupe. Collectively this is known as a mimicry complex. This is the intro to the article, so I can't figure out what your objection is to using the Mimicry complex redirect. Since this page is named "complex", we ought to be linking to things known as "complex", which this obviously is.
2. - Imaginary number - This article declares in its introduction that it is a complex number, and the Complex number article seems to contain extensive explanations of imaginary numbers and units. I am not a mathematician, so I hope that someone who understands the terminology and concepts better will keep me from error here, but it seems that an imaginary number is a type of complex number, which doesn't seem to make it synonymous with the word "complex". Any user investigating this use of the word complex, will certainly be put on the right track by going to the Complex number article, which would seem to be the broader use of the word "complex". I can't see why we should break the rule here.
3. - Your piping of Complexity theory in the Complex system entry is certainly deprecated in MOSDAB per WP:PIPING, especially the way you have added it as a secondary blue link. If you'd like, we can add Complexity theory (which is actually a dab page anyway, not an article) to the "See also" section.
4. - I will accept your rewording of the field of sets entry, since I didn't think I had that quite right, but I think it would be better to link complex algebra in that entry, since it is a redirect to the exact same article, and it acually uses the word "complex", which is what a user who ends up at this page would have been seeking.

I hope we can sort these changes out. I have no intention of edit warring, and I do accept my limitations of knowledge, but unless there is a compelling argument to ignore the rules, I will abide by the guidelines at WP:MOSDAB, since they have been reached and held by long consensus. I will copy this conversation to Talk:Complex and we can continue it there. SlackerMom (talk) 15:31, 10 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What is Kotniski talking about here? There is no guideline that I'm aware of that claims avoiding redirects is better. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 18:37, 10 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I can't speak for Kotniski, but it looks like you guys are close to edit warring over this, and I'm not inclined to jump in and save you. You're going back and forth between two options that both seem acceptable to me. I prefer linking Hitler, but I don't think it needs to be the only way. Linking Adolf Hitler instead doesn't really make that much difference. I don't think consensus will be found to restrict the style to one way only. SlackerMom (talk) 19:46, 10 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, I have stopped edit warring. But the main problem with two options is this: how does one decide when to use a redirect and when not to? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 19:56, 10 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think it depends on the needs of the particular page. We can't make a rule forcing everyone to use the same one every time when many good editors disagree. If you aren't sure which way makes the most sense on a particular page, then just pick one and see if it stands. Or throw it to the talk page for that dab. If nobody cares, then your version will stand. If anyone cares about that page, they'll either change it or comment on the talk page, and you can discuss it and come to a consensus. The point, I think, is not to fight over this one. SlackerMom (talk) 20:28, 10 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Guess I'll wait and see what becomes of the discussion back here. Care to comment further there? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 20:45, 10 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please, explain the last deleted line in this cleanup. Isn't Avtomatika i telemekhanika abbreviated as Ait or I missed anything? Thank you. --Yuriy Lapitskiy ~ 14:00, 8 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Good to see you back on here, Boleyn2 (talk) 07:17, 22 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello. I know you've offered some comments at Talk:HP (disambiguation), but the conservation regarding the fate of hp belongs on its talk page. Will you please weigh in there and reconsider your stance. I think WP:REDIRECT indicates the page should redirect to the dab, since redirects are used to accommodate miscapitalizations. —Eustress ^talk 16:09, 20 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello SlackerMom. When you are back from your break, could you please copyedit the New World Order (conspiracy theory) article? --Loremaster (talk) 05:55, 17 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

		The Editor's Barnstar
		Thanks for cleaning-up and reducing the fancruft out of the Larry Norman article. I think I'm too close to the subject to be objective. Please continue the fine work. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:18, 2 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wow! Thank you so very much! That article is a mess, and I can see you've been trying! I thought I'd just get some of the most egregious stuff out, but there's plenty more that needs cutting. I'll do what I have time for. I do appreciate the barnstar! SlackerMom (talk) 15:44, 2 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Howdy. Following your conversion of this page from disambiguation to a redirect, a number of incoming links to William T. Moore now end up at the wrong person (William Theodore Moore Jr.). - TB (talk) 16:03, 16 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You are so right. How sloppy of me. I have now fixed them all. There were two other people represented by the incoming links, but neither of them has an article yet (that I could see), so I have created matching redlinks for them in case an article needs to be written in the future. They are William T. Moore (Texas senator) and William T. Moore (yachtsman). An entry already existed for William T. Moore (yachtsman) on the William Moore (disambiguation) page, and I will create one there for the senator as well. SlackerMom (talk) 14:18, 18 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Many thanks, and good job. - TB (talk) 21:10, 18 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You betcha! Thanks for catching it! SlackerMom (talk) 13:55, 19 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

WikiWomen Unite!

Hi SlackerMom! Women around the world who edit and contribute to Wikipedia are coming together to celebrate each other's work, support one another, and engage new women to also join in on the empowering experience of shaping the sum of all the world's knowledge - through the WikiWomen's Collaborative. As a WikiWoman, we'd love to have you involved! You can do this by: Liking the WikiWomen's Collaborative on Facebook and share your tips, projects, and connect with other WikiWomen Join the conversation on our Twitter feed Reading and writing for our blog channel We can't wait to have you involved, and feel free to drop by our meta page (under construction) to see how else you can get involved! Can't wait to have you involved! SarahStierch (talk) 00:59, 5 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:35, 23 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

   I made some attempt to understand the intent of the following longstanding Dab entry: National Vanguard, one of several white nationalist or neo-fascist organizations and publications whose link had the markup

[[National Vanguard (American organization)|National Vanguard]]

but failed to arrive at any explanation for its creation, and used this (unpiped) entry:

National Vanguard (American organization)

to replace it. It's of course possible i erred.
--Jerzy•t 23:07, 14 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Stahlberg: disambiguation. Since you had some involvement with the Stahlberg: disambiguation redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. DannyS712 (talk) 06:15, 2 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Méré (disambiguation page). Since you had some involvement with the Méré (disambiguation page) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 14:47, 5 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]