User talk:Dagnabit

Thanks!

Oops, WP:EL!! My bad. Thanks! --EmmSeeMusic 11:43, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rv

not trying to be funny--I'd like to know your rationale for deleting whole swaths of edits on Planet Rock without discussing. Robotam 03:43, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FoxTrot

I noticed that you have removed the hatnote on FoxTrot with the remark that the title is not ambiguous. I agree that the CamelCase title is correct and not in need of disambiguation, but it is, IMO, a plausible mispelling of Foxtrot and so a link to the disambig page is useful. I also generally think that things listed on disambig pages should link back to them, even if the title is explicit (though there are exceptions). Eluchil404 22:01, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, disambiguating hatnotes are only for cases of ambiguity. Disambiguated titles are not ambiguous. Dagnabit 22:12, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you agree or disagree that 'FoxTrot' is a plausible misspelling of 'foxtrot'? Is there policy support for the statement disambiguating hatnotes are only for cases of ambiguity or is it just your personal opinion? The example of Cold fusion and ColdFusion on the WP:DAB page seems to argue against you.Eluchil404 22:22, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FoxTrot is the spelling of a comic. Please see the top of WP:DAB: "resolving ambiguity". FoxTrot is not ambiguous. WP:DAB says that ColdFusion should be listed at Cold Fusion, probably because it might not be known that the programming language does not follow standard English. Please note that it does state the opposite. Dagnabit 22:40, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think we're talking past one another. Cold fusion and ColdFusion reciprocally link to one another. Eluchil404 22:49, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DAB only mentions that Cold fusion should link to ColdFusion. Nothing about the opposite. ColdFusion is probably not ambiguous, but it is a topic I'm not familiar with (nor do I care about it either). Dagnabit 22:51, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus not to include them? Where the hell is that?

First off, as I said, the dependencies (and even the unrecognized nations) were part of the template for some time before the trouble, and so the proper thing would have been to revert to that version while we were discussing. Secondly, almost all the discussion on the talk page was about the inclusion of unrecognized nations--the dependency issue was set aside for the time. Finally, no consensus has been reached period. _└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 18:43, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

k

explaine why you removed the zenv/plus picture? any resons? ok good... ill put it back up 71.52.96.203 23:48, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was deleted. This was explained in the edit summary, why are you asking here? Dagnabit 16:57, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kirkland

I don't really understand your edits to Kirkland. You removed Category:Surnames, for example. Well, it's a surname. You moved the people named Kirkland down the page, when the list of people is longer than for other classes.

I try not to make a big issue of dab pages, since there are various views. But I don't see your edits as an improvement, and I don't think they should have been marked as 'minor'.

Charles Matthews 20:27, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The only reason I didn't remove all the names is that many people seem to want this listcruft. My changes are minor and an improvement as the page now more closely follows the guidelines. Dagnabit 23:04, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Svalbard and Jan Mayen

Please do not blindly convert Svalbard and Jan Mayen to Svalbard and Jan Mayen. Removing the entry completely from List of double placenames was entirely proper, as it is not a double placename. And I have a certain amount of sympathy if you wish to (collegially) make the usage clearer or argue against the entry at, say, Europe. However, in articles such as ISO 3166-1 and many others, the reference is to an actual coding classification, which is what the Svalbard and Jan Mayen article is intended to cover (it could be improved, of course). Where this coding classification is what is being referenced, converting to the two separate articles is incorrect. - David Oberst 21:56, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An AFD you participated in before is back for a second round

List of special entities recognized by international treaty or agreement is nominated for deletion again. I'm contacting all of those who participated in the first AFD discussion. Dream Focus 02:25, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

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) 16:04, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]