User talk:JHunterJ/Archive 18

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

User talk:Podruznik

User talk:Podruznik, whom you previously blocked, has been making rude comments [1] and ignoring WP:COI in regard to Lava Beds National Monument. I gave him another warning, and I request you to please block this user again for his continued disruption. Thanks, Reywas92 ^Talk 16:45, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm back from Wikibreak. This doesn't seem to have remained a problem in the interim. Is it cool (for now)? -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:57, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image (File:MangaBlackCat.jpg)

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:MangaBlackCat.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Zoo Fari 04:11, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Chronology of Star Wars

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Chronology of Star Wars.

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chronology of Star Wars (2nd nomination). Ikip (talk) 09:33, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Cross

You are wrong. It is not a bold or controversial change, it does not need discussing. 82.46.49.45 (talk) 12:58, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for using a talk page. Bold is good, not bad -- all undiscussed edits are bold. However, the change is controversial because at least one other editor (me) disagrees with it and no consensus for the change has been formed. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:00, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Come on then, let's hear you wrong arguments Talk:Blue_Cross as to why the U.S. meaning of this term is so important. 82.46.49.45 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:41, 12 November 2009 (UTC).[reply]

No, you propose a change to the existing consensus, you share your arguments on Talk:Blue Cross and/or Talk:Blue Cross (disambiguation), as I indicated on my first message to you. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:45, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please, update your AWB

Hi, your edit to Cantharellus lateritius with AWB caused an error in that article. This bug in AWB was already fixed. Could you, please, update your AWB, so that this doesn't happen again? Thanks. Svick (talk) 21:23, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just ran the updater, with no update found. I'm on version 4.9.0.2, so perhaps this bug is not fixed? -- JHunterJ (talk) 21:28, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't use AWB myself, but according to their page, the last stable release is 4.6.0.0, but users should use SVN snaphot (currently version 4.9.0.3). That's probably why it doesn't update itself. I was told, that this issue was fixed last month. Svick (talk) 21:45, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thanks. I updated the AWB page to show that new version too. -- JHunterJ (talk) 21:48, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delta

Hi-The only problem that I see with your edits is that the "see also" section isn't supposed to have terms where "delta" is present in the name. See WP:MOSDAB#Order of entries for that specific guideline, that's why I sorted it that way in the first place. The guidelines for the "see also" section, which are at WP:MOSDAB#"See also" section state specifically what belongs there, and it doesn't include words that contain "delta". Please adjust your modifications accordingly to match the guidelines. I know they are just guidelines, but don't you agree that it's better not to have a really long "see also" section? --Funandtrvl (talk) 01:59, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MOSDAB#Order of entries applies to entries for ambiguous articles. The ones I have moved to the See also section are WP:MOSDAB#Examples of individual entries that should not be created: entries that only happen to include the ambiguous word but are not themselves ambiguous. They can be deleted, but in the past I've found that deleting them also causes drama, so I've erred on the side of retaining them in See also. We can delete them here, if the length of the See also section is a problem. -- JHunterJ (talk) 02:24, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, now I understand your reasoning. I've been working on the links to the page, and what's in the see also section is not used in any pgs that have links to it, mainly the pgs are linking to river delta, Delta Air Lines and Delta, BC. So I think I'll remove the clutter under see also! Thanks for the explanantion. --Funandtrvl (talk) 02:37, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

		The Admin's Barnstar
		For persistence in assuring that Wikipedia be free of partial title match lists, and for the many other substantial contributions you have made to Wikipedia over the years, I award you this barnstar. Neelix (talk) 20:59, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Include me in the "List of pages that say Thanks!". -- JHunterJ (talk) 00:12, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry? Neelix (talk) 01:02, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That was meant to be a joke. "Thanks!". Now this page can be in the indiscriminate list of pages that say Thanks!. I guess it's not a very good joke. :-) -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:28, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wili

Thanks. That's why I asked for help.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 21:29, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eagle's Nest

I hope you don't mind, but I put back the word "Eaglenest" because it's used several times.

I'm glad people like you are around who can fix the work of those who have the information but still don't feel confident about how to present it.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 23:53, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure. The presentation is certainly secondary to getting the information out there, so I'm glad you're contributing the information too. Cheers! -- JHunterJ (talk) 02:07, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Katakana

勤労バーンスター

I dropped by your user page on my way to give you a barnstar for your work with the dab project's talk pages, and I noticed that you have a Japanese katakana transliteration of "Hunter" there. I just thought I'd take the occasion to let you know that the usual transliteration would be ハンター rather than フンター. フ is technically the correct character for "Hu", but only when that's pronounced as in "who". If you feel like looking at the Japanese Wikipedia, you can verify this by looking at, say, ホリー・ハンター (Holly Hunter). Happy hunting! Dekimasuよ! 12:55, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arigato gozaimasu, Dekimasu-san! -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:11, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Protection

You may undo if you feel you've got the situation under control - didn't mean to step in at the wrong time! BOZ (talk) 20:42, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:51, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Undo

I see that you are an admin, so I would expect a bit more professionalism than a straight undo and alphabet soup, seeing as I am no newbie. I am disgusted with your quick trigger and rather rude stalking. This is why people leave. Yes, it is the trivial, petty reasons like this that seem to piss people off enough to say fuck it. I have had it with all powerful, inconsiderate editors, but from an admin? I admonish your brash attitude and will leave you alone to your seemingly ever-closing ranks. --Tombstone (talk) 12:56, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, how about an undo with an edit summary instead of a straight undo, and in that edit summary I include links to the guidelines that apply? Of course, I'll have to use shortcuts to those guidelines, since the edit summary has no unlimited length. You made an edit, it was reverted with an explanation, and you should feel free to take it up on the page's Talk page (Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle), but of course you're free to take umbrage instead. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:01, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

King George

Dear Sir, I'm not sure if this is the proper way to edit in a comment on your page - if I've done it wrong in some way, I apologize. That said, on the article for King George, you've removed the reference to George Bush on the first of August. (I think? I might be using/reading it wrongly...) I've put Mr. Bush back in again, because it seems to be a common way to describe him, some of the people in the article's talk page, (and myself) want him mentioned in some way at least. Ah, I'm not sure if he's mentioned in the best/most organized way, but I DO feel that he should be mentioned, which is why I've put him back. (Edit: I DID look for a + sign at the top of this article but I didn't find it, and I forget to sign my name, heh FelixtheMagnificent (talk) 15:36, 3 December 2009 (UTC))[reply]

(I've updated the instructions on this page. The "new section" tab used to have just a "+" instead. Thanks for pointing out that it was wrong.) I've continued the section on Talk:King George#Supposed nicknames that I started when I first removed the possible nicknames. -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:03, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again sir, and thank you for your fast response! Ah, I feel VERY stupid for not having figured out that I should've simply used "new section", but at least I know now for the future, heh. As for the Talk page for King George, I had only skimmed it rather than thoroughly reading it (I'm sorry), and ah. . . heh that seems fair enough. Thank you again then! FelixtheMagnificent (talk) 17:31, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of things described as headless listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect List of things described as headless. Since you had some involvement with the List of things described as headless redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Neelix (talk) 16:57, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the pointer. Chimed in. -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:05, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Feroze page

JHunterJ, since you have considerable experience in disambiguation pages, can you review Feroze and see if the contents and formatting need fixing. Thanks. Abecedare (talk) 06:07, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like you have some useful information on the name there, so I split it into a name article and a dab page at Feroz (disambiguation). I hope that meets the intention well enough. Cheers! -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:10, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Thanks. Abecedare (talk) 13:52, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FlashForward / Flash Forward

You seem to have some experience with redirects / disambiguation pages. What's your opinion of all the moves going on here?

Flash Forward (Canadian TV series)

FlashForward (American TV series)

Talk:Flash Forward (Canadian TV series)

Talk:List of FlashForward (American TV series) episodes

Rob Sinden (talk) 15:53, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the recent move. Would you also move the List of FlashForward (American TV series) episodes page back to List of FlashForward episodes as well? There is a discussion on the associated talk page strongly in support of the move. Thanks! Drmargi (talk) 21:14, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done. -- JHunterJ (talk) 01:30, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bless your deleting and moving heart! Drmargi (talk) 09:29, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

aga zaryan: tone of article

please could you elaborate on your flagging of the article tone? regards, fizik —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fiziklsean (talk • contribs) 15:14, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Aga Zaryan conveys the finest of the history of jazz to today's audiences, continuing the tradition of great artists like Shirley Horn, Carmen McRae and Joni Mitchell." "Due to its intimate feel, the album was well-received critically and enjoyed commercial success, becoming a Bestseller which achieved platinum status. With the release of Picking Up The Pieces, Aga Zaryan established herself, not only as one of Poland's premiere jazz vocalists, but also as an artist of international standing." Some of it seems more suited to promotional material than to an encyclopedia article. -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:37, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

many thanks, I'll look into more appropriate phrasing. regards, F -- fiziklsean 15:47, 13 January 2010 (CET)

Alliance and Alliance (disambiguation)

We were both working on the same pages at the same time - I accidentally ended up trampling on your changes - I don't like doing that. I extensively reorganized Alliance - I didn't know how to preserve your changes and save my changes at the same time. :(
Perhaps Alliance should only have the definitional information and possibly International Relations, and Alliance (disambiguation) should have all other links.
Perhaps also to be merged into Alliance (disambiguation) are Alliances, Alliances (disambiguation), and Alliance (comics).
Obankston (talk) 16:17, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You saved your changes more than 90 minutes after mine. I reapplied the split to your changed version. Check out the {{inuse}} if you are working on major revisions offline. -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:53, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gothic (term)

Since you created the page I assume you are aware of the debate on the validity of this article in its current form. A clarrification over why it was moved to this title (and any other contributions, of course) might be helpful to the debate if you can find the time. Thanks.--SabreBD (talk) 09:43, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't create the page Gothic (term), you did. I chose its new title as part of a "fix" to the early cut-and-paste move of the disambiguation page (WP:CPM). The article content and the disambiguation page need to be on separate pages. If there is a primary topic for "Gothic", the article on that topic should be at the base name (this should follow the WP:RM process, as I noted at the time). If there isn't, the disambiguation page should be at the base name (so currently, Wikipedia is set up so there is no primary topic). It could also be that the "term" article's content should be deleted, as DBachmann suggests, and the links to the articles merged into the disambiguation page (although I believe there are all already there). I don't defend the existence of Gothic (term) page. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:01, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware that I created the content. I meant create in the sense that you initiated its current location and would as likely to be watching it. I was not trying to pretend the content was your fault. Thanks for commenting in the debate.--SabreBD (talk) 13:34, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bypassing NPP on Redirects

I saw you removed the section WP:RNPP from WP:Redirect, and your rationale for doing so was WP:BEANS. I get your point. But this is a practice that goes on already, and I feel that by giving such instructions, it'll help to alleviate this problem. Sebwite (talk) 02:13, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You could be right. But it could also increase the problem, by explaining how to do it to users who haven't considered it. It also seems out of place on the redirect guidelines. It seems better suited for the administration or dispute resolution areas. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:42, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Tofurky" Deletion

Hopefully, you will have read the tag carefully; you, as the admitted creator of the page, are not to remove it. This is a persistent article promoting blatant advertising, with zero acceptable references. This article is not for WP, and its number is surely up. Again, I advise you to not remove the deletion tag. We will go from here. Thank you... Doc9871 (talk) 10:30, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully, you will have read the edit history closely; I, as the admitted splitter of the page, did not remove it the last time. Since the speedy has already been declined, I advise you to take it to AfD. We would go from there. And leave your high horse behind, please. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:38, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

This is a formal warning. Do not delete valid content. Also restore Calbuco Island! TrueColour (talk) 21:35, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your formal warning. However, in this case it is misdirected. The reason the disambiguation page is tagged for cleanup is that it is (I assume) disambiguating Spanish Wikipedia articles, but many of them do not (yet) have English Wikipedia articles. Please review ownership, Bold, revert, discuss, move requests, and the disambiguation style guidelines. -- JHunterJ (talk) 21:37, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Additional: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:CSD#G6 does not apply since it is not uncontroversial. It is NOT disambiguating Spanish WP articles, since all links go to en WP!!! Read WP:MOSDAB, WP:DAB, that topics have red links is absolutely ok. See also the pending WP:RM at Talk:Calbuco. You should not interfere with it. TrueColour (talk) 21:40, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is no need for the excess exclamation points. Red links are used on disambiguation pages when (a) the red link is also used in a Wikipedia article and (b) the red link entry on the disambiguation page includes a blue link to a Wikipedia article that discusses the ambiguous topic. -- JHunterJ (talk) 21:42, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The condition that a and b must be met is not a WP policy. You have been reported to WP:ANI. See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:JHunterJ_violating_WP_policies. It would be a good sign if you can make a statement on Calbuco Island - did you delete it? Please undo. TrueColour (talk) 22:13, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, I didn't delete it. It has never existed. -- JHunterJ (talk) 22:22, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and MOS:DABRL explains the criteria for red links on dab pages, which is how I restated them above. -- JHunterJ (talk) 22:24, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It does not. Do you need glasses or have no understanding of proper English? The condition that a and b is required simply does not exist. Thanks for the island statement. I really thought I created it. I have already seen weird things with MW software. So I am not sure that I didn't create it. But at least it's nice to hear that you say you didn't delete it. TrueColour (talk) 23:31, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Take a step back, TrueColor. The first paragraph at MOS:DABRL seems to say "the red link must also be used in a Wikipedia article," the second one seems to say "if there is a red link, there should be a blue link." I have my glasses on and have done pretty well understanding English for many years. And JHJ has been editing dab related stuff for a long time, knows his stuff and, from what I have seen, has always been straight-forward in his interactions here. He deserves your assumption of good faith. (John User:Jwy talk) 00:33, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Disam help

Hi, I want to delete one beat. It was originally mistakenly added for Beat (music) and One Beat and then correctly changed to downbeat and One Beat. It means though that it was and is not useful. How do you go about taking the page out? RB88 (T) 17:49, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I made One beat a redirect to One Beat and added a hatnote on One Beat to point out Downbeat. If One beat needs to be deleted, see WP:AFD or (if the redirect remains in place for a while) WP:RFD. Cheers! -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:59, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. :) RB88 (T) 18:03, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dabbing Las Vegas, NV

Simply, most links to the city are not for the the city. They are for the metro area or the strip. So I have been changing them over time. I even had one link that should have been for Henderson that was for the city of Las Vegas. So I'm very slowly cleaning these up. I don't believe that I have gotten any wrong. The exception is for birth places that could be in the city but there is no supporting material to show that to be the case. This problem is why, I believe, another editor has moved the strip to the top of the dab page for the primary use. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:30, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Right, since there is no source, and from history any source is likely to be vague about the hometown location, the metro area is correct. There is no proof that her home is in the city. Her home town in Las Vegas, the area, unless there is some proof otherwise. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:54, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, someone just added the Aria in the LV article as being downtown. Clearly the meaning of Las Vegas is ambiguous. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:26, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A pseudo-disambiguation page?

I think this is another partial-title match page for your collection: Pseudo. I haven't tagged it or AfDed it; I though I'd let you look it over and decide what to do with it. Cheers!--ShelfSkewed Talk 06:09, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I collapsed it to a prefix article. Looks like it has been transwikied before to Wiktionary; I'll mull it over. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:05, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aside. Hmmm Looks like if we collapse JHunterJ's bio article to a stub, it will make navigation of Wikipedia easier somehow. :-) Take a break, guys, it's the holidays. lol
On a more serio-comic note, did you like my resolve of your topic at ANI? ;) Proofreader77 (talk) 14:31, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I certainly liked it. TrueColour/TheCabluco didn't see the humor. Merry Christmas, Proofreader77! -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:44, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I saw the complainant had just been blocked, or I wouldn't have done so. It seemed fitting, somehow. :-) Yes, Merry Christmas to you.
PS: There's going to be an Arbcom about another matter ... but because of the people involved I'm sure the Boke issue will be raised. If it does (my promise:) "It will all be convivial." (I'll certainly do my best to make it so).
Bottom line, if you end up participating ... please do not think I will resent your expressing anything you believe to be true. That is all any of us can do. Cheers. Proofreader77 (talk) 14:57, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]