Loading AI tools
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 45 | ← | Archive 50 | Archive 51 | Archive 52 | Archive 53 | Archive 54 | Archive 55 |
Just want to point out that with this edit to Burn In Hell, you made it a self-redirect. I understand if it was a mistake, but just know that page names are case-sensitive, except in a few circumstances. Thanks. LikeLakers2 (talk | Sign my guestbook!) 19:24, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
I figured you'd be a good person to bring this up with. Perhaps you can take a look at recent activity by Jozoisis (talk · contribs), and compare that with recent activity of Xqbot (talk · contribs). Along with all the double redirects created along the way, this user is redirecting numerous valid dab pages to the Michael Jackson article. I reverted some of this activity once already, but I'm now in a position where it seems that any further efforts I could provide would probably only come off as revert warring. I believe that what is happening here is damaging, and it probably needs admin intervention to bring it under control. Your assistance with this would be much appreciated. Thank you. -- WikHead (talk) 03:28, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Tom Walshaw a.k.a. Tubal Cain (model engineer). Since you had some involvement with the Tom Walshaw a.k.a. Tubal Cain (model engineer) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Andy Dingley (talk) 00:21, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
Bkonrad, why do you keep reverting my edits? That is very very rude. If you continue to do so...--ISeeWhatYouDo (talk) 06:01, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
The Clockwork Theory is not true to deism, it is unreasonable. Please read at least the first chapter of Born again Deist. Are you a Deist? if so why do you believe in the clockwork theory?
Deism is perhaps the only religion invested in its own evolution rather than in upholding its traditions. The only “ultimate assumption” in Deism - and even that is recognized to be a belief deduced via common sense - is that God is the Creator and sustainer of existence as we know it. Beth Houston - Born again Deist
Most people today probably remember Deism from junior high or high school history class as an antiquated philosophy held by some of America's Founding Fathers and other Enlightenment intellictuals in Europe. Merely a fringe worldview that resembled scientific determinism of pagan nature worship more than any of the major world religions, Deism had something to do with a Clockmaker God who wound up the universe and left it to run on its own like a ticking clock. The pop quiz definition, with its impersonal God and mechanical Creation, IS A MODERN MISCONCEPTION of a thriving, immensely popular religion that prevaded American society during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries- a religion as thoroughly understood by early Americans as it is misunderstood by most Americans Today. Beth Houston, Born Again Deist.
Conservative Christians demonized Deist ideas during the eighteenth-century Enlightenment just as it had in the previous century. Many of us Americans were taught in our history classes that Thomas paine was atheist or agnostic, and that the Deists' "Clockmaker God" was obviously no longer engaged with nature or humanity, making God, in effect the absent Father. But in fact Paine was a passionate believer in a dynamically creating, actively virtuous God, and "Clockmaker God" was a term coined by reactionary Christians who wanted to discredit the Deist and their rational theologies. Beth Houston, Born Again Deist.
Deism, on the other hand, truly maintains its faith in beliefs and respects any belief that does not contradict common sense. One might even argue that common sense itself is the high priest of Deism. Beth Houston, Born Again Deist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dsomeone (talk • contribs) 16:53, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
I am just the beginning, we are coming to fix this definition, in numbers.
if you want to be honest you need to help us fix Wikipedia.
Deism has nothing to do with the Clockmaker or Clockwork theory. etc...
This is something created by Christians to discredit Deism, are you Deist or Christian?
If you are not Deist, Please leave, if your are Deist Please Help.
Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dsomeone (talk • contribs) 16:59, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
If you are Christian please Leave, If you are Deist please help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dsomeone (talk • contribs) 17:02, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
Please stop deleting the truth, The Clock Maker or Clockwork theory is untrue to the definition of Deism, And it is unreasonable, This can be proven in many books, but is best summed up by Beth Houston in the first chapter of her book "Born Again Deist".
If you are not Deist please leave, if you are Deist please help.
But please stop spreading untrue definitions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dsomeone (talk • contribs) 17:13, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
Beth Houston has done the research for us, Her book is the most reasonable and true writing on Deism you will find.
If you are Deist you will know this.
If you are not then you are spreading false, unreasonable and misleading information. which is all contrary to Deism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dsomeone (talk • contribs) 17:23, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
Bkonrad, I have to say that you should've stopped reverting as well. You're also way past the 3RR threshold in this content dispute. None of Dsomeone's edits constitute vandalism or violations of the BLP policy. So your reverts should have been limited to three. I'm not going to block you since I have already blocked Dsomeone for one day and so won't revert him any longer today. But consider yourself warned about edit warring in this matter. De728631 (talk) 17:38, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
Anglicisations of Gaelic names (both Irish and Scottish) very often (usually, probably) have numerous variants. Although there are instances when spelling variants of apparently similar names may indicate a different origin (and conversely there are names which have a variety of origins or derivations but the same spelling), McClain and McLane are simply some of the numerous spelling variants of the anglicisations of Mac Gill-Eain (or Mac Gille Eoin, Mac Ghill' Eathain if you like, for some Gaelic spelling variants), probably the most common of which is MacLean.
George F. Black's "The Surnames of Scotland" (1946, The New York Public Library) lists Maclean, MacClean, MacLaine, MacLane and MacCleane alone at the start of the relevant entry, but then goes on to list well over fifty further variants within the text. It is rather a problem with Wikipedia that separate articles are often created for each spelling variant of a name and although the article may list other variants under "See also" it is not always clear when they are just different spellings of the same name. I believe it to be misleading to have separate entries based purely on spelling variation.
Although I can't see it specified in WP:DABNOT, if one is not to list pronunciations in DAB pages, fair enough. I am however interested to know what alternative pronunciation you believe these two spellings to have. I had created the audio file as the potentially confusing spelling of the "MacLean" variant is likely to confuse as to its pronunciation but decided to also include it in entries for other spellings listed in Wikipedia, even when these spellings may actually be closer to the pronunciation. It is possible that outside of Scotland, variant pronunciations have arisen for McClain and McLane; I am not aware of this but if you are, I would be interested to know. Mutt Lunker (talk) 23:18, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
Following on from my discussion on Talk:Grey oak) - I just saw you fixed the Latin class DAB (Horse mussel) - good, at least I understand it now! Can you help me? My understanding is that if there's a specific class of disambig, then use that, else use the main {disambig}. right? OK, so why don't we have a species class, and how do I go about creating one? This is such an obvious class, I'm assuming there's a flaw in my logic - as someone else would have done this already, right? OK, now, where do these "class" DABs stop and set-index start - as ship names for instance are set-index. Can you disambiguate? Widefox; talk 09:46, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
Your cooperation with the Pennsylvania wikiproject would be desirable. Please stop moving pages against the project's established naming convention for townships, which mandates the county name's inclusion in all articles. Your comment of "non-existent naming convention" will easily be proven wrong by checking all Pennsylvania townships-by-county categories: this will reveal that your pagemoves are going against project consensus, as will the move log for Bensalem Township, Bucks County, Pennsylvania. Nyttend (talk) 06:48, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for your comments on Danilovsky District, that and a discussion with Ezhiki, got me thinking. I've initiated a proposal at Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation on Set index articles definition and List disambiguation first over set index article with same coverage. --Bejnar (talk) 23:31, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we request your participation in the discussion to help find a resolution. The thread is "Deism". Thank you! — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 19:34, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
Hi Bkonrad. I attend The University of New Hampshire and for a project I need to create a Wikapedia article. I was going to make my article on the Green River the runs through Greenfield MA. I noticed that you deleted an article titled: Green River (Deerfield River) and was wondering what your reasoning for this was and whether you were planning on doing anything with it in the future. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cjr232 (talk • contribs) 18:37, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
Alright, thanks for the clarification. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cjr232 (talk • contribs) 17:43, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Why would you not give me an example of a use for one these templates that results in incorrect and ungrammatical usage? Do you wish for me to stop hard-coding the word in for them? Hyacinth (talk) 02:05, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
Hello, Bkonrad. You asked, "why? there's no rule that see also only contain other disambiguation pages". You are right, mostly. There is a guideline suggesting that the section may contain pages similar to or sometimes confused with the title being disambiguated, or it can include {{lookfrom}} or {{intitle}} partial-matches. I guess the things you re-added are similar to that, in that they have the word apology or apologies in their titles. I doubt that readers landing on Apology would be looking for one of those topics, but I guess it's not impossible. Happy editing, Cnilep (talk) 03:16, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
The guy is going nuts on St. Louis-related topics. Have you run into him before? Viriditas (talk) 20:39, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
The problem with the "cursory search" reasoning is that there are simply far more "Chinamen"/Chinese who can read and write English, than the population of England (England and Wales), Scotland and Ireland combined. The usage is definitely completely different here on the British Isles and in Europe. Does the peculiar usage within certain parts of the English-speaking World give precedence over the usage of the language as a whole, including as a lingua franca? -- KC9TV 03:30, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
Second link in Things to do list (Disambiguation watchlist) is broken, gets error "User account expired" Tadiew (talk) 17:22, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
Good morning User:Bkonrad,
Thank you for your advice. I have followed it. Also, this morning – because it was not clear – I have moved the disambiguation notice from the bottom of the page to the top.
With kind regards,
Sincerely, -- Gareth Griffith-Jones/GG-J's Talk 09:32, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Dear Bkonrad, I was attempting add additional information Wikipedia Page on "Ira". But there appears to be some issue which I don't understand as you reverted the changes. From your short comments on the "View History" page I am guessing it is something to do with the linking to other pages. I am new to Wikipedia authoring and I am still reading and understanding the rules. I appreciate if you can tell me the mistakes I am making. Emmro (talk) 04:04, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
Seamless Wikipedia browsing. On steroids.
Every time you click a link to Wikipedia, Wiktionary or Wikiquote in your browser's search results, it will show the modern Wikiwand interface.
Wikiwand extension is a five stars, simple, with minimum permission required to keep your browsing private, safe and transparent.