User talk:YesButNo

Hi YesButNo! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Missvain (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:02, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Denisarona. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Francisco Pizarro have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think a mistake was made, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Denisarona (talk) 10:40, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 10:55, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And be very careful who you accuse of vandalism.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 10:58, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You keep reverting a good edit. What else should I call your actions? YesButNo (talk) 11:48, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Common sense, Wikipedia policy and consensus, for starters...--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 16:06, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

...Or whatever excuse you may come up with to better fit your agenda. You are adding unnecessary bureaucracy to a very simple matter which does not need to be this complicated. YesButNo (talk) 20:55, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi YesButNo -

I noticed that you've been having a frustrating time at Francisco Pizarro and I thought I would reach out to help to the limited extent that I can do so. I saw your edit summary that you feel like people are ganging up on you, but I can assure you that the reality is much simpler. You've removed the disambiguation hatnote from this page several times, and the reverts simply represent multiple experienced editors who are trying to let you know that your edits fall outside of WP guidelines.

It seems like this all stems from confusion over the purpose of disambiguation, which is simply the process we use on WP to distinguish between entries on subjects that share the same name (a common occurrence on WP). Disambiguation doesn't really have much to do with how notable or obscure a subject is; it just helps our readers get to the intended article with the least possible fuss.

Pizarro the explorer is, by far and away, more widely known; therefore, he gets the page named Francisco Pizarro. The Chilean athlete is more obscure, so his entry gets to settle for the name Francisco Pizarro (footballer). However, it would be terrible if a person in Chile typed in Francisco Pizarro looking for the football player and got "stuck" at the explorer's page. For that reason, we put the hatnote at the top of Pizarro the explorer's page. We aren't saying that we think that Pizarro the footballer is popular or great. We are simply saying, "Hey, if you typed in Francisco Pizarro, you're probably looking for this explorer guy. However, on the off chance that you're looking for this other article, here is that link too."

I hope this helps you to understand disambiguation, and I hope that you'll consider reverting your own changes to the Pizarro entry, now that you can see that there is no concern about a subject being too obscure for a hatnote. It looks like some people are growing concerned about your tendency toward edit warring on this subject, and if you reverted your own change to the entry, I think that would reassure your fellow editors that you have maturity and an ability to learn from your mistakes. EricEnfermero (Talk) 12:03, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes hello, do you honestly believe this disambiguation halfnote is not out of place? Seems like you are using minor technicality of rules over proper form and common sense. I feel as if I'm being gang-edited because I simply cannot believe more than one like minded individual in favor of this halfnote exists. YesButNo (talk) 12:13, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I can assure you that you are encountering different editors. You'll notice here that I average several thousand edits per year. I point that out only to say that I don't have time to impersonate any of the other editors involved in your reverts. If I were trying to be two (or five) editors at the same time, I would be fired from my job and would have failed out of school. :) I would not say that we are like-minded, but we all agree on the standard usage of this routine hatnote.

Did you read the link that I left you about disambiguation hatnotes? It's quite simple and explicit when it says that "any article with an ambiguous title should contain helpful links to alternative Wikipedia articles or disambiguation pages, placed at the top of the article using one or more of the templates shown below." If the Francisco Pizarro (footballer) hatnote were on some other person's entry, it would be out of place. But since it's on Francisco Pizarro, it is helpful. More than just blindly following a rule, that hatnote ensures that the reader finds the appropriate subject. EricEnfermero (Talk) 12:30, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are dodging the question I asked you with the concern of the proper common sense though. You can read wp:common sense here. The footballer is totally obscure, which is evident through his own pageview statistics. It seems improper to add unnecessary halfnote clutter to an area which is already crowded. Let me ask you again if you honestly believe your actions are appropriate. Seems like you are still using technicality and rules as an excuse for a bad decision. YesButNo (talk) 12:46, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly believe the hatnote reflects common sense. The hatnote might serve a small percentage of readers, but we cannot have areas of the encyclopedia that are inaccessible simply because more than one subject has the same name. The reader looking for the footballer would type in his name and likely get right to the explorer's page. At that point, he has to guess which search to try next, especially if he isn't so savvy with WP navigation. Should he type in Francisco Pizarro Cortés? Francisco Javier Pizarro? Francisco Pizarro (footballer)? Francisco Pizarro (football)? Francisco Pizarro (soccer)? We can make it so much easier on him with this simple hatnote.

I notice that you've proposed a move of the footballer, but I think you've misspelled the subject's name in your proposal. I think we're unlikely to move the page to a four-part name when adding "footballer" is so much simpler. A hatnote will still be required at Francisco Pizarro even with the move. It seems like you may be getting stuck on an issue here that really isn't so much of an issue. My hope is that you'll be able to let this go until you have a better understanding of disambiguation and page naming conventions. I think that's really all I can say. EricEnfermero (Talk) 13:01, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing is misspelled, and I'm done arguing here. There has always (unofficially) been discern for disambiguations and their relevance. None is being made here for the petty sake of argument. You win, enjoy the obscure halfnote clutter. YesButNo (talk) 21:04, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Looking into this, I fixed our spelling of Cartes, because it was WP that had it wrong, according to multiple available references. I'm sorry for causing additional stress on that point. I don't think I am fully understanding your message (some of the wording, like using discern as a noun, isn't clear to me) and I don't want to assume what you mean, but it sounds like you might be frustrated by the general way that disambiguation is handled on WP. As you've recognized, it isn't productive to edit war at one article over a matter of interpreting WP guidelines. If you are looking to make broader changes, maybe someone at WP:WikiProject Disambiguation can point you in the right direction to start those discussions. EricEnfermero (Talk) 21:23, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. I am glad to see that you are discussing a topic. However, as a general rule, talk pages such as Talk:Rastafari are for discussion related to improving the article, not general discussion about the topic or unrelated topics. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. Thank you. Doug Weller talk 06:14, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]