User talk:Mbell

Welcome!

Hello, Mbell, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay.
Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian!
If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up very shortly to answer your questions. Don't be afraid to ask!
If you would like to experiment with Wikipedia, I invite you to do so in my own personal sandbox (just follow the simple rules!) or in the Wikipedia sandbox.
When you contribute on talk pages or in other areas, it is important to sign your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date.

Again, welcome! — ßottesiηi ^{Tell me what's up} 21:01, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Escalante River

Thanks for your photo of the Escalante River - I've put it down as a fulfilled request now. Wonderful picture! Oh, and one more question... vy ste slovak? TheGrappler 22:12, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mangling of links to particle

Hello. Your robot is attempting to disambiguate particle links, but ends up just stripping the link without replacing it with an appropriate disambiguated link. Please stop it from doing this, as manually fixing these links is a pain. --Christopher Thomas 16:33, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm actually doing this manually, not using a bot. My reason for doing this is that the majority of the current links use the word in the general scientific sense, and there is no appropriate article for that case. From Wikipedia:Disambiguation_pages_with_links: Also, when the link refers to a general meaning of the word, for which there is no relevant article, removing may be the most sensible option. I'm using this as the logic behind what I'm doing. Typically, I've found that the specific types of particles are linked nearby in the article, in which case I view those to be the more relevant links that should be left in. I'll hold off for now, as I'm open to other suggestions on how to handle this. Maybe a particle (science) page would be more appropriate? I'll try starting a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation pages with links --Mbell 18:54, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Would List of particles be a more appropriate place for those links? --Mbell 19:01, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The ones I've revised were mostly made to point to fundamental particle, though I think I left a talk-page comment de-linked. Even fixing the edit summaries to make it clear you're de-linking rather than disambiguating would be nice. For "particle" in a generic sense, the disambiguation page itself is probably the most meaningful place to point to (list of particles would get confusing for non-experts). --Christopher Thomas 20:31, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The response I've gotten at Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation pages with links is that it is appropriate to remove these links. I think that most of the articles I modified were on fairly in-depth topics in chemistry and physics, in which case I'd expect anybody reading it to know what a particle is. I really would rather not link to the dab page for the general sense, as that's kind of what I'm trying to fix here. :) If you have any more thoughts on this, I'd recommend putting them into the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation pages with links to keep everything in a more appropriate place. --Mbell 17:47, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't leave links to the disambig page unless it was clearly called for. If it's already linked once in the page, then strip the next one, but there are some circumstances where removing the linkage isn't appropriate, for instance, this link [1] had an appropriate dab to subatomic particle. If all else fails, you can link to the definition of the word in Wiktionary, [[:wikt:particle|particle]], goes to particle. A useful dab! Dreadlocke 02:26, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I generally just removed links on talk pages rather than trying to figure out where to put them, as most of the comments they were part of were more than a year old. I did end up using Wiktionary links a few times though, mostly for the non-science variety of particles such as grains of sand and such. --Mbell 15:28, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely agree. The only reason I point out that particular talk page reference is because it was an actual segment of the article that was removed and being considered for re-insertion back into the article - even tho it was old. I fixed it just in case it was put back. Isn't disambiguation fixing fun! It's more complicated than one would think! :) Dreadlocke 21:45, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question

This might seem to like a very dumb question, but what's the difference between making a link like this

Goldfish with no vertical line, and Goldfish with a vertical line and the word written again?

Thanks. QuizQuick 20:55, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Thanks for clearing that up for me! QuizQuick 21:04, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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 23:09, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link fixing one-day contest

I have decided to put on a mini-contest within the November 2013 monthly disambiguation contest, on Saturday, November 23 (UTC). I will personally give a $20 Amazon.com gift card to the disambiguator who fixes the most links on that server-day (see the project page for details on scoring points). Since we are not geared up to do an automated count for that day, at 00:00, 23 November 2013 (UTC) (which is 7:00 PM on November 22, EST), I'll take a screenshot of the project page leaderboard. I will presume that anyone who is not already listed on the leaderboard has precisely nine edits. At 01:00, 24 November 2013 (UTC) (8:00 PM on November 23, EST), I'll take a screenshot of the leaderboard at that time (the extra hour is to give the board time to update), and I will determine from that who our winner is. I will credit links fixed by turning a WP:DABCONCEPT page into an article, but you'll have to let me know me that you did so. Here's to a fun contest. Note that according to the Daily Disambig, we currently have under 256,000 disambiguation links to be fixed. If everyone in the disambiguation link fixers category were to fix 500 links, we would have them all done - so aim high! Cheers! bd2412 T 03:07, 18 November 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) 13:58, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]