| Revision as of 11:30, 2 May 2017 editIn ictu oculi (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers180,551 edits →Hi← Previous edit | Revision as of 12:25, 2 May 2017 edit undoTavix (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators75,344 edits Let it go. Steel is trying to avoid pointless drama right nowNext edit → | ||
| Line 23: | Line 23: | ||
| (Notice I avoided saying that you'll come back like a bad pen...) ] (]) 19:59, 29 April 2017 (UTC) | (Notice I avoided saying that you'll come back like a bad pen...) ] (]) 19:59, 29 April 2017 (UTC) | ||
| ==Hi== | |||
| @Tbhotch: I can confirm that I have run across instances where IIO has moved a page to a title with a disambiguator, but in the process, doesn't create a disambiguation page. However, this wasn't always the case: The lack of creating disambiguation pages may be a recently-developing issue. I recall a few years ago, IIO moved quite a few song or album related pages from base titles to tiles with disambiguators and then created disambiguation pages at the leftover redirect's base title. However, such disambiguation pages were created before the consensus was established declaring that if an article about a song or album is the only article by that name that exists on Misplaced Pages, then it should be at the base title. (I can't recall where that guideline is at the moment, but I am sure you know what in referring to since I think we've crossed each other's paths regarding this in the past.) Steel1943 (talk) 17:22, 27 April 2017 (UTC) | |||
| :The reason for not creating a dab page immediately is (a) a footer template needs 24 hours to settle as in the case of the three Bombay Mail articles where creation of a dab page was prevented before the template settled, (b) sometimes a primary redirect is justified, while still making articles easier to find, (c) if your edits are being regularly followed by an individual it's best not to lock them all in, allowing the follower a period to revert, lest the follower create more drama. That does then create the danger of having forgotten. All the best. ] (]) 11:26, 2 May 2017 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 12:25, 2 May 2017
 Archives |
Retired
 | This request for help from administrators has been answered. If you need more help or have additional questions, please reapply the {{admin help}} template, or contact the responding user(s) directly on their own user talk page. |
To whomever responds to this request,
Please remove all user rights associated with my account that can be removed. (I think this means everything except autoconfirmed and extended confirmed, but if either of those can be removed as well, go for it.) I don't plan on being back for probably ever, and I don't want my user rights to remain in the event that somehow, this account gets compromised. Thanks! Steel1943 (talk) 20:05, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
- Done, though I hope you return after a break. It seems like this could've been avoided if the other party had simply checked the actual content of edits that they were reverting. ---- Patar knight - /contributions 20:38, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for all the fish.
(Notice I avoided saying that you'll come back like a bad pen...) Anmccaff (talk) 19:59, 29 April 2017 (UTC)