User talk:Danny lost
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] WikiProject Disambiguation Talk Request
This is a form message being sent to all WikiProject Disambiguation participants. I may have found your page based on your contributions or your link repair user box on your user page. If you are not a member, please consider including your name on the project page. I recently left a proposed banner idea on the WikiProject Disambiguation talk page and I would appreciate any input you could provide. Before it can be approved or denied, I would prefer a lot of feedback from multiple participants in the project. So if you have the time please join in the discussion to help improve the WikiProject. Keep up the good work in link repair and thanks for your time. Nehrams2020 22:52, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] redirects
- I saw you systematically work on bypassing redirects. You obviously have good intentions, but there is a guideline that explains that this is a little more damaging than helpfull. trespassers william, an impressed newbie.
-
- That page says:
-
-
- In particular, there should never be a need to replace [[redirect]] with [[target|redirect]].
-
-
- That is idiotic! If an article misspells a person's name in a link, so it goes to a page that redirects to the correct spelling, I should just leave the misspelled name in the article??
-
- People who write Wikipedia policies using the words "always" or "never", especially when emphasized like this, are almost (ha!) always being similarly stupid. Michael Hardy 00:34, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- (You are unplesant to talk with, please) your case does not apply here since, as explained thereafter, in the quoted sentence the two instances of redirect stand for exactly the same wording. In its terms, what you are suggesting is replacinng [[redirect]] with [[target]], which is indeed helpfull in such a case. So the discussed form is probably more appealing (but redundant) in descriptive cases, say [[|syntax|syntactic]] vs. [[syntactic]], where the adjective redirects to the noun. I can't think of a case when this appeal is justified. But really, is all you were doing was fixing erroneous redirects? trespassers william 11:46, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- When I write "bypassing a redirect page" in an edit summary, it is almost always because the redirect is to a misspelling or something with inappropriate capitalization or a misnomer or the like. If it says "[[Kat]]s are different from dogs." and "kat" redirects to "cat, and I change it to "[[Cat]]s are different from dogs.", then I write "bypassing a redirect", or words to that effect in an edit summary. So then you came along and told me I shouldn't do that, and cited that policy page. Michael Hardy 17:56, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
- You now use both wider definitions that you used to and an unhonest blatant example (plus bad writing) in order to disguise your misunderstanding and might-be-errors. Anyway, now that i have made sure you are aware of the situation, i will not bother you further with the subject. trespassers william 20:45, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Why are you so hostile? My example is not dishonest; it is a fictitious composite. I was just as aware of the situation before I heard from you. What you wrote to me originally was misleading. Michael Hardy 22:09, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- I felt some hostility on your side, and i am sorry of overreaction. Now i don't think this discussion can be continued practically. if you like to argue some theoretical point, I will be glad to. trespassers william 11:56, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
