User talk:JHunterJ/Archive 36

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.

Stylization of the "common name"

In January 2013 there was a "RfC on COMMONSTYLE proposal" at WT:AT in which you expressed an interest. FYI there is a similar debate taking place at the moment, see Wikipedia talk:Article titles#Stylization of the "common name" -- PBS-AWB (talk) 12:13, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Away team

Am I guessing right in assuming you never watched Star Trek? Because this is just wrong. Viriditas (talk) 01:51, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the requested move discussion here. My concern is not with the formatting of the dab but with the target of the title. In your previous edit, you mistakenly removed one of the major uses of the term. Regardless of the primary use, the video game is not the target. Viriditas (talk) 02:15, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your guess is wrong. I'm guessing you've never read WP:MALPLACED, though, nor the edit summaries directing editors to WP:RM instead of creating the malplaced disambiguation page. Also, no uses were mistakenly removed. The article Star Trek does not MOS:DABMENTION "away team". -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:04, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

JHunterJ, your edits, your removal of accurate information, your reverts to incorrect primary topics—all of it was unsupported and basically irrational. This is not the kind of behavior we expect from an admin. The video game has never been the primary topic at any time. Why you would restore this inaccuracy when informed of it is mind boggling. You appeal to rules as if they somehow allow you to do wrong things. I've seen you do this before. Viriditas (talk) 18:12, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Viriditas, your edits contrary to the consensus guidelines after those guidelines were pointed out was irrational. This is not the kind of behavior we expect from editors. The video was the primary topic for some time. You ignore rules as if they somehow don't apply to you. I don't remember our previous interaction, but I'd guess you were wrong then too. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:25, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What part of the word "guideline" is giving you difficulty? My edits were entirely in concordance with the facts and the consensus now formed on the RM discussion. 1) The video game has never been the primary topic, yet after this has been explained to you, you keep adding it back, in error. 2) Your removal of key entries from the dab page is in error, and your removal of those entries demonstrates you are more concerned with following the letter of the guideline rather than keeping Wikipedia accurate. This edit demonstrates poor judgment, and in the future, I will not be relying on your judgment again. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. That's the policy you violated by insisting we follow a guideline over good judgment. Viriditas (talk) 04:42, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus is forming in the current discussion. Once the discussion is closed, then the consensus will have been formed. It's not a complicated distinction. Your addition of incorrect entries demonstrates that you disagree with the disambiguation guidelines but haven't gotten consensus for ignoring the rules here. You're more concerned with your opinion that keeping Wikipedia accurate. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:56, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong again. Either your reading comprehension is poor, or there is a serious competence problem on your end, perhaps a combination of both. Your most recent edits demonstrate this problem. There was never any community consensus to redirect the away team article. How in the world did you decide to redirect it to a video game article when all of the links show this is not the primary redirect? And furthermore, why would you delete the page history? Now, you've created an enormous amount of work for competent admins to do. Your involvement in this debacle makes you ineligible to use the tools, which you did anyway to promote a singular POV not shared by the community. Before I take you to ANI, I will ask you one last time, why did you redirect the article to a video game, and why do you continue to modify the dab page to support that view, when there is zero evidence supporting it? Viriditas (talk) 19:52, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong again, indeed. Other editors have also told you to wait until the RM finishes, instead of treating it as a fait accompli. You failed to distinguish me from EEMIV when asking why EEMIV decided to redirect it to a video game article. No page histories have been deleted, although I did fix the mess you created when you assumed fait accompli by temporarily deleting one article in order to split its page history. Your statement re my being "ineligible" to use the tools reflects your continuing disconnect from reality. Please, do take me to AN/I if you feel like wasting more time. -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:15, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As a result of this answer, I am composing an ANI report at this very moment. EEMIV's decision to redirect the article to a video game article was never supported by anyone /except you/, and by doing this, you violated PRIMARYTOPIC as well as community consensus. More recently, you have attempted to promote this erroneous primary topic with your admin tools, making you INVOLVED. Is that clear? Viriditas (talk) 20:20, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

None of my admin work there has done anything except fix WP:MALPLACED, leaving me still quite uninvolved -- I have never edited the video game article except to restore the needed hatnote AFAIK, and I'll continue to use the admin tools to fix the problems that require them. Clear? -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:36, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You enforced the actions of a single user against community consensus, actions which erroneously redirected an article to the wrong target, and you enforced these changes, without consensus, on the disambiguation page pointing to these targets. When your errors were pointed out to you, instead of taking responsibility, fixing the problems, and moving on, you denied there was a problem, used your admin tools to enforce your views against consensus, against PRIMARYTOPIC, and against INVOLVED and NOTBUREAU. To make matters worse, you then blamed others for the problem. I hope that covers it. If I missed anything, let me know. Viriditas (talk) 20:45, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You've missed: (a) your assumption of bad faith; (b) your disregard of the guidelines; and (c) your treatment of a current RM as a fait accompli. -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:52, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ANI notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Viriditas (talk) 21:06, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

KC, Cross-linking

Hi, I noticed that you recently reverted some of my edits. I just read the MOS:DABPAGENAME, and I think that I understood the reason for your edits on Cross-linking. however, "KC" is the most used abbreviation for keratoconus, don't you think this disease should be mentioned in the KC? k18s (talk) 19:41, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Once information about KC being the most-used abbreviation for the disease can be added to keratoconus, then it could be listed on the dab page. But if it doesn't warrant mentioning on the article, there's no Wikipedia ambiguity. (MOS:DABMENTION) -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:05, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Talking about dab pages, I hope you could help me with this issue too. I received an automated note about pointing a link from corneal collagen cross-linking to the corneal ectasia (dab page). is this a correct use of the dab page? can I ignore the BPL bot's message? k18s (talk) 19:59, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Does it not intend just one of the corneal ectasia topics? If it does need t link to the broader concept, the dab page might need to be reworked as a broad concept article -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:05, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've mentioned the abbreviations with references in the article and listed the disease on the dab pages. corneal ectasia can refer to any ectatic disorders of the cornea, and since this disorders have similar management methods, sometimes it may be convenient to link to the dab page instead of single articles. k18s (talk) 20:01, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Right, and when that's the case, it's usually because the dab isn't a dab, but a list of things within a broader concept. But if you really really need to link to a dab page intentionally, use corneal ectasia (disambiguation) (WP:INTDABLINK). -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:23, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help. I've created corneal ectasia (disambiguation) as a redirect. I hope it's okay now. k18s (talk) 15:46, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 18:51, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

February 2015 – GWB

How come there can only be "one blue link per line" as seen here on GWB? I'm a little confused. —Magicaluniverse (talk) 04:37, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(tps) This MOS:DABENTRY is where you will find the relevant policy and guidelines. MarnetteD|Talk 04:43, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! —Magicaluniverse (talk) 04:50, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

February 2015

Your recent editing history at Quantum leap shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
The majority consensus on the talk page was to redirect to the television show. And now even more accounts have switched it to the show, with only you reverting. JOJ ^Hutton 19:53, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Funny. Protecting the discussed consensus is not edit warring. -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:55, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Funny, by my count, it was 6-4 in favor of redirecting to the television show. That's mot you 'Protecting the discussed consensus', that is you redirecting the article against the wishes of several other editors. Its edit warring and it needs to stop.--JOJ ^Hutton 20:58, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merger discussion for Widow maker

An article that you have been involved in editing, Widow maker, has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Maestroso simplo (talk) 01:34, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Andrew McMillen for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Andrew McMillen is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrew McMillen until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Transcendence (talk) 19:24, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Andrew McMillen

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Andrew McMillen requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. TOW 19:48, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Leverage listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Leverage. Since you had some involvement with the Leverage redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Ivanvector (talk) 14:52, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

World's worst title

Hey JHunterJ,

I see you are on a wiki break, but since this isn't exactly a pressing matter I thought I'd leave my question here for you to think about when you have time.

I was considering another move request for the 'John Gielgud, roles and awards' article. I think the real problem is that the title is something you would find an an index; if the title was in a sentence it would be gramatically incorrect. That's why a lot of us don't like it, I think. And we can certainly come up with gramatically correct prose for the title, so we feel that we should do so.

The conceptual issue I have with this is that there are articles such as United States Presidential election, 2000 which ultimately seems to me to be the same format of title as the godforsaken one. (Wouldnt "2000 .... election" be better according to the justifications for Mr Gielgud)?

Am I not seeing the difference? Or maybe the election article title is sub-optimal? The policy about descriptive article titles doesn't have extensive guidance. Your thoughts are welcomed. AgnosticAphid talk 15:33, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Once Upon a Time

In cause you didn't get an automatic notification, you might want to check out what I just wrote at Talk:Once Upon a Time. —BarrelProof (talk) 23:10, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring

relocated to Talk:John Gielgud, roles and awards#Edit warring

Thank you for your help!

I have made an edit on page Savoy (disambiguation) and you reverted it as partial title match. Thank you for your edit, I had not avare of this policy before! :) Axelock (talk) 10:39, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Straw poll

Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Disambiguation_pages#Straw_poll_results - please correct as needed. —Swpb^talk 19:49, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Victory (disambiguation)

See discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disambiguation#Victory (disambiguation) disagreement. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:01, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rawson House

properly relocated to Talk:Rawson House#Rawson House -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:20, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Counter-Maniera

I've told you twice they are NOT improvements. You obviously favour a very bald style indeed, but this is certainly not mandated by WP guidlines - far from it. You are not a very experienced text editor, and notoriously intransigent, so I don't think I can be bothered to get into an item-by-item argument about it. Just ask yourself whether there might be a reason why things are expressed the way they are, and whether those reasons might be good ones. Johnbod (talk) 17:13, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You've offered your opinion that they are not improvements, even though some of them obviously were improvements. You can't be bothered but I'm intransigent? Just ask yourself if there's no way other people might help express things. Experienced text editors also know it's "guidelines", not "guidlines". -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:55, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Other editors certainly, you apparently not. If you didn't keep blanket reverting it might be easier to sort out any acceptable changes. Johnbod (talk) 20:00, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That comment only makes sense if you are talking to yourself, since I broke out my edits into discrete units, which you then blanket reverted. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:31, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Jays and blue jays

In April of 2011 I edited the article on Blue Jay, removing what looked to me to be nonsensical capitalization of the words "Blue Jay" throughout. JimfBleak subsequently undid my revision, citing the special exception to WP:COMMONNAME that was reserved for birds. I was incredulous— a special case just for birds??— but I was not prepared to argue the point nor initiate or propose any change to existing guidelines or policies. Fast forward four years: this morning, via a completely unconnected path, I was notified that there had been a change to the article Squaw. I had a look, and saw that a sentence had been changed and the edit summary was "Lower case for species common names as described at MOS:LIFE using AWB". I "knew" (from my experience with the Blue Jay) that this edit was in conflict with what I had learned if not supported in the article Blue Jay. So I went to Blue Jay and saw it was now, somehow, Blue jay. And that throughout the article, it was "blue jay", and no longer "Blue Jay". Somehow good sense had prevailed. And then I read the lengthy discussion on the whole business on bird name capitalization from 16-17 months ago, and finally understood the details. Am writing to thank you for your role in that discussion, which I think came to the correct conclusion. It's not that I feel vindicated over the capital letters no longer in use at Blue jay, it's that I like well-founded consistency, and this morning I get to have a little of that! KDS4444^Talk 16:19, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome! Thanks for the note; it's nice to share in the consistency!. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:26, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Belated thank you

Hey, hope things are well with you. I've been back here for a couple of months after taking an extended break and one thing I've noticed while pottering around RM and the like is all the requests to fix malplaced dabs that we never seemed to have before (or at least not nearly in such volume). I've only realised a few days ago that the reason for this is almost certainly connected to you becoming less active. And then once I made that connection, I realised how much work you must have put in over the years fixing these things before they became a problem for anyone else. So this is a very belated thank you for the mountain of work you've done here keeping the project in order. Some of this "gnome" admin work can be underappreciated by the community here, but I wanted to let you know that I'm grateful for what you've done and hope you're enjoying your well-earned "time off". Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 18:20, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're very welcome! I appreciate getting these notes. I'm certain I'll eventually come back out of my self-imposed exile. :-) -- JHunterJ (talk) 22:06, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Come back, when ready

Hi JHunterJ, encouraged that you want these notes...come back, but only when ready. I've consistently found you the most spot-on editor in a world of ambiguity, so there's less light without you. Widefox; talk 11:33, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Widefox. I'm not sure I'll be back in the disambiguation project when I come back. I left because Bkonrad and others have taken the position that I act in bad faith or counter to the consensus or who knows what, and I got tired having to defend myself against increasingly spurious accusations. I may clean up disambiguation pages that I stumble across, but the project itself and I have "drifted apart". Cheers! -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:59, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Renaming Belladonna page to Belladonna (disambiguation)

JHunterJ, back in February 22, 2008, Marchije had renamed the Belladonna page to be Belladonna (disambiguation). It was changed back by you July 19, 2008. I have proposed on the Talk:Belladonna page to change the page back to the disambiguation label, and would like to involve you in the discussion if you are interested. Mburrell (talk) 02:14, 30 October 2015 (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) 13:42, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Informant

I wanted to improve the titular article but you semi-protected the page so that most potential editors haven't been able to edit it for years. You mind unlocking it? All usernames are taken 2 (talk) 04:01, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Use {{edit protected}} to request an autoconfirmed user to implement your proposed improvement, or wait until you're confirmed. Most potential editors can edit it. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:42, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of request for deletion of YPG dab

Notice of deletion request, that YPG (disambiguation) be deleted per G6 (a redirect holding up a consensual page move). --Dervorguilla (talk) 04:32, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be interested in your view (!vote) about the PT. Widefox; talk 00:33, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas!

BOZ (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:Flaming/MC2008}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

I'm wishing you a Merry Christmas, because that is what I celebrate. If you don't like Christmas or just don't celebrate it in any of its forms, then please accept a generic "Happy Holidays". If you celebrate no holidays at this time of year, then hopefully you will be satisfied with an even more generic "Season's Greetings". :) BOZ (talk) 18:55, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]