User talk:Jojhutton/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
My FAQ
Q1: Why do you remove the "United States" from articles? Isn't it more thorough to mention the country?
A1: It is common convention among English speaking scholars to write geographical areas in the United States as (City, State), and leave out the country, as there is no need to disambiguate the location by adding the country, since there is only one Houston, Texas in the world. Every English language manual of style agrees that this is the proper way to write it. WP:PLACE covers this very nicely on wikipedia and is meant, despite the title, to be applied to all articles. Some have disagreed, and thats okay, but there is no convention anywhere on wikipedia that says that (City, State, Country) is the best and proper way to present the information. In many cases, the country name is already placed in the info box, making the addition in the body of the article redundant.
Q2: Does the removal violate any policy?
A2: No. There is no policy that says that removing "United States" is vandalism. In fact there is no policy that says that it needs to be in there at all.
Q3: Have there been previous discussions on this topic?
A3: Yes there has. This archived discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style seems to agree that the convention is (City, State).
Q4: Are you the only one who feels this way?
A4: No, of course not. In various discussions, Other users have expressed support for this convention in the past, in one way or another. They are: User:Woogee, User:Wikidemon, User:ShadowRangerRIT(except in the infobox), User:Pmanderson, User:Tony1, User:Jimfbleak, User:Sambc, User:DGG, User:Rodhullandemu, User:Dohn joe
Q5: What Should I do if I still don't agree?
A5: As far as this page goes, nothing. If you leave me a message here, I will only hat close your question and refer you to these FAQs. Leaving me a message here, means that you have not taken the time to read the FAQ. I'm not changing my mind, unless there is a policy written that says that it must be in there, so any discussion is futile, and redundant. If you revert, and place "United States" back into the article, don't worry, I won't edit war with you over this issue, unless I feel that I am being wikihounded. In that case, I reserve the right to protect my edits

Yes I do enjoy editing and adding to wikipedia, thank you. I try to contribute as often and as correctly as possible, although I don't contribute as much as others. Thank you for your helpful hints, I am still learning the etiquette of wikipedia and I do try. As for the edit I mad about Herbert Hoover, I am aware that citations are helpful toward the validity of wikipedia articles, but pieces of information that are a matter of public knowledge need no citation. This may not be a wikipedia policy, but it is a standard writing practice. You may not agree, but that is what I have been taught. If I said that a dog has four legs, would I need a citation to verify it, or is it a matter of public knowledge? Must a writer cite every single snippet of information? If I said that the President of the United States was George W. Bush, must I find an article to support it? But if I said that George W. Bush was a member of the NRA, then I better find documents to support my findings, then cite them. Again thank you for your concern.

I did not tag the item in the article, which if you check the "history" of the article you will see who did. But, the item should have a citation, as this may be common knowledge to you, but it was not to that editor (or myself as well). To put it more bluntly, if someone asks for a citation, you need one, as that means it has been challenged. Happy editing. Aboutmovies (talk) 23:31, 2 September 2008 (UTC) I am sorry about the misunderstanding on the citation issue. Again I am still learning the bits and pieces of wikipedia and don't understand every little detail available. I usually learn by looking at how others have done things when they edit, so thank you again for the links above. I have reviewed them and will return to them on a need to know basis. This whole process of adding symbols in certain order to create the needed result is so confusing but the links above will help. I agree that what is common knowledge to one person may not ne common knowledge to another, but I wasn't talking about common knowledge, I was speaking of public knowledge, and public knowledge is not up for debate, therefore is not usually challengable by normal standards. If a third party citation is used for every bit of information in writing, then the research would overwelm the writer and the reader to the point of exhaustion. That is why public knowledge citations are not common in normal writing, but perhaps wikipedia is its own master on this topic. Wikipedia is its own beast. First, see the verifiability policy for part of the reason why we try to have a citation for everything. The distinction between public and common knowledge is not really important. It is public knowledge that David Hill adopted some children in 1850, I know I read it in the state archives in the public records. But until right now as I type that, I am probably the only living person in the entire world who knew that. So, despite it being public knowledge, I would certainly have to have a citation in order to back up what I am saying. Which leads us to Criticism of Wikipedia, which if you read you may come to better understand why some of the rules exist. I'm not saying you are making anything up, but by requiring citations for things that no everyone knows and agrees to (i.e. the Holocaust is public knowledge, but not everyone agrees it happened) we help avoid the problems of made-up stuff that occasionally makes it into Wikipedia. Aboutmovies (talk) 11:49, 4 September 2008 (UTC) So if Wikipedia is its own beast, would that make you and your cronies, the beast masters? Then deciding what is right and wrong for the rest of us who casually contribute to the glory of wikipedia. Long live the beast.Jojhutton (talk) 14:56, 7 September 2008 (UTC)jojhutton I had already taken care of part of it early today. In the future, I'd suggest not using the move function until you have a better feeling of Wikipedia functions. You can always just cut and paste text to start an article. Aboutmovies (talk) 01:04, 9 September 2008 (UTC) I was thinking about cut and paste, but thought this would be easier. Thank You.Jojhutton (talk) 01:08, 9 September 2008 (UTC) Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jojhutton"

Warning

Stop reverting my edits in Harry S. Truman, he is People of the First Indochina War and American people of the Vietnam War. It look to me that you didn't read the article at all. You think my edits are wrong but you did the same thing. 96.229.193.68 (talk) 03:22, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I reverted your edit once not twice. Every time you make the change, another LOGGED IN editor reverts your edits because the phrase that you use was not the common wording for Southeast Asia during Trumans Presidency. Please feel free to discuss on the articles discussion page if you feel your edit was still correct. --Jojhutton (talk) 03:36, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism removal

No, there is no real hot key for filling in the edit summary, though there are some "automated" tools you can access via your "my preferences" option in the top right of the screen. Usually, people just use the "undo" option and note "rvv" which is short for revert vandalism. Just be careful you are removing pure vandalism (kids inserting the word poop and the such) and not reverting attempts to add content, change the wording or other attempts at improving the encyclopedia whether or not you agree they are actually improving the article per WP:AGF. In those cases, revert but give a detailed explanation. Happy editing. Aboutmovies (talk) 06:19, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I use Twinkle, which is one of the tools that Aboutmovies mentioned. DCEdwards1966 16:22, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry

Sorry for that, I may have reverted right after you reverted without me seeing your revert. Techman224 (talk) 23:49, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Huggle

Huggle is an anti-vandalism tool used to revert vandalism and put in the warning templates automatically. It's also used to set other templates, requests for protection, and more. Information on Huggle can be read here. However, there's a problem with it and I don't recommend using it now until it's fixed. Besides, you need the rollback right to use it. Techman224 (talk) 00:46, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Rollback granted

You have been granted rollback permissions on the basis of your vandalism fighting efforts. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:

  • Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
  • Rollback can be used to revert vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
  • Rollback may be removed at any time.

If you no longer want rollback, then contact any admin and they can remove it. Also, for some information on how to use rollback, you can view this page. I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, just leave me a message on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Happy editing! Wronkiew (talk) 15:23, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Nixon

For what it's worth, I think it would be better not to use the word "controversial" in the lead. It would be OK to use the term in the substantive part of the article, provided it is cited to one or more sources - it must not sound like the opinion of the article that the pardon was controversial. As to "likely impeachment and conviction", that is POV as it stands. The simplest way round that would be to replace "likely" with the more neutral "possible". Hope this helps. Brianboulton (talk) 11:49, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I am afraid I don't accept the third party opinion. I can muster as much historical evidence as you want me to to show that his impeachment and conviction were likely, not just possible, in the opinion of every historian of the subject. It is not POV - it is the historical consensus. Cripipper (talk) 16:54, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Go for it. I can summon up many citations to show that historians believe the impeachment and conviction were likely, not just possible. You are trying to use your own personal bias about the thing to override the historical consensus. Cripipper (talk) 17:12, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
You are entirely missing the point. Nixon resigned because his impeachment and conviction were likely. Not possible. Likely. His impeachment and conviction had been a possibility for a long time, ever since the House Judiciary Committee started their investigation. That is why the word likely is important, because it is the causal factor in why he resigned.Cripipper (talk) 18:09, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
I also suggest you wander over to Watergate and start editing it down to a discussion of the possibility of impeachment to see how far it gets you. Cripipper (talk)
I am sorry if you have taken offense at use of the phrase 'watered down'. I used it since possible is inherently a weaker adjective than likely, thus the switch from the latter to the former is, to my mind, watering it down. However, no offence was intended. Cripipper (talk) 20:25, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Nixon, part II

It's okay and thanks for doing what you are doing with the article. I've done quite a bit of work on it myself before you stepped in (I got Mrs. Pat Nixon's to FA status) btu it still needed (and needs) major work. I'd like to step in and help you in a little bit, but I'm a little tied up at the moment...

That said, here is the sentence you inserted on the divorce cases: "He would not handle divorce cases because he was very embarrassed by some womens' admissions of sexual misconduct." First off, the subject of divorce cases and Nixons' unwillingness to handle them is probably appropriate. The parts that strike me as inappropriate are "very embarrassed" and "by some womens'". 'Some' is a weasel word in this case. And why would he be embarrassed at the admission of sexual misconduct? Maybe disgusted or offended due to his strong Quaker faith, but since the sexual misconduct was not something that he took part in, I don't see the embarassment factor. Happyme22 (talk) 22:37, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

True, it is telling. Perhaps we could incoporate both of our ideas into it? Happyme22 (talk) 01:42, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Hello, Jojhutton, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Aboutmovies (talk) 18:04, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


Thanks: Third Opinion Help on Kluger Agency

I just wanted to say thank you for your help with the dispute on the Kluger Agency article. It's greatly appreciated: I understand how frustrating, disruptive and unproductive these can be.

Thanks to you the dispute now seems to be coming to a satisfactory close for both editors, and I felt this was a suitable time to show my gratitude.

Thanks again, fakelvis (talk) 10:16, 9 October 2008 (UTC)


POV

"(Please cite and not POV)" LOL

Have you even read an history book ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.234.248.31 (talk) 20:39, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Milhist

Hi! I see you're a member of the American Civil War task force but not of the Military history wikiproject itself. Would you like to sign up? You can do so here. Thanks in advance, --ROGER DAVIES talk 11:14, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks ...

... for your comments at Talk:Abraham Lincoln assassination. I agree with you 100%. I think it's probably best if I simply stay away from Mkpumphrey if possible. I reverted one of his edits as non-notable, but I have promised him not to interfere if other editors do not object and he re-adds the information. For some reason that bewilders me, he has decided to personalize the matter. I'm staying away from anything related to that particular issue and (I hope) away from any of his other edits. Thanks again. Ward3001 (talk) 23:13, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I would like to thank you as well. What you wrote at Talk:Abraham Lincoln assassination is much appreciated. After reading what you wrote, I removed my last write-up in that Discussion section. I am now surprised that I let Ward3001 get to me. In an odd way, I think I may have been a little more than impressed at how many other contributors this person has managed to ( ... forget it ... ). Anyway, I do agree that you are 100% correct. Best Wishes! Mkpumphrey (talk) 00:57, 19 October 2008 (UTC)


Thanks to both of you as well. If you would like, I can look at the dispute and perhaps make some suggestions.--Jojhutton (talk) 00:59, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Mac Reverts

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although MacBook is a product designed by a company based in the United States, it is a computer sold worldwide. This qualifies its article to be written in an international form of English, rather than the one you prefer. Please remember, this is the Wikipedia for all English speaking countries, not just the American Wikipedia. Darkshark0159 (talk) 14:27, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

In a recent edit to the page MacBook, you changed one or more words from one international variety of English to another. Because Wikipedia has readers from all over the world, our policy is to respect national varieties of English in Wikipedia articles.

For subjects exclusively related to Britain (for example, a famous British person), use British English. For something related to the United States in the same way, use American English. For something related to other English-speaking countries, such as Canada, Australia, or New Zealand, use the appropriate variety of English used there. If it is an international topic, use the same form of English the original author used.

In view of that, please don't change articles from one version of English to the other, even if you don't normally use the version the article is written in. Respect other people's versions of English. They in turn should respect yours. Other general guidelines on how Wikipedia articles are written can be found in the Wikipedia:Manual of Style. If you have any queries about all this, you can ask me on my talk page or you can visit the help desk. Thank you. Nja247 (talk • contribs) 16:06, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Changing the spelling back to the original American version for an American Company that sells most of its products in the US and Canada is very proper and there is no need to tag my talk page as if I was not following wikipedia policy. I will not let zealous editors change articles needlessly, without comment. It is every editors duty to revert improper edits. But we must be careful not to be too zealous in how we deal with our fellow editors--Jojhutton (talk) 19:00, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I never endorsed or changed to one style over another. I alerted everyone involved of Wikipedia guidelines and wasn't paying attention to who was right or wrong since that would be taking a point of view, something I didn't take. I don't think a friendly notice, like the one I gave to everyone involved was over the top. As long as it's settled then I don't wish to hear anything else about it. Cheers. Nja247 (talk • contribs) 19:51, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Personal Attacks

I'm sorry. I didn't realise that quoting your user page was considered a personal attack. Darkshark0159 (talk) 02:40, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Quoting my page in a way so that you say I worship presidents. As if I cannot comment on the discussion.--Jojhutton (talk) 02:54, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Macbook

The issue seemed to be resolved after Jason A. Quest referenced WP:POINT, yet you and Darkshark continued to battle each other. Can we please get back to spreading human knowledge and stop fighting? Please? --Terrillja (talk) 03:52, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Stop warning

Your warnings are going to be ignored. Just leave the IPs for the administrators to block. -Jéské Couriano (v^_^v) 01:57, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Hello, Jojhutton. You have new messages at Jéské Couriano's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Thank you...

... for reverting the vandalism of my User page. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 02:04, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Your very welcome.--Jojhutton (talk) 02:07, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Nice work on the reverts

Just wanted to let you know that I appreciate your efforts to rid the Wiki of bad edits. Leaving a constructive (template) message when you revert someone never hurts. Wronkiew (talk) 03:47, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank You, nice to feel appreciated.--Jojhutton (talk) 04:04, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

Thanks, Jojhutton, for reverting vandalism to my talk page. Cheers, JNW (talk) 15:27, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Motivations

Joj, I'm confused. In this edit, are you saying that I'm a troll or something like that? Look, maybe Arcayne, with whom I've never had any discussions before this JWB business, might be misinterpreting me. But I can't believe that you think that I'm purposely being difficult.

As Arcayne has been getting less patient, I've always felt confident that eventually we'd all calm down and work this out; the only thing necessary is good faith and time (there's no reason it all has to be settled now, IMHO. I've changed my mind in the past on issues that I had a chance to reconsider). But now I just don't know.

I'm not going to contribute any more to the discussion at this time. Everything I say seems to piss someone off. I'll continue to monitor the discussion, because I'm genuinely interested in (yet unconcerned with) the topic. Contrary to what has been said, I don't care what the final edit ends up being, I just wanted to have an honest, fair, and reasonably calm discussion. Unschool (talk) 00:26, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for clarifying that. I realized that the comment was directed at him but I thought it was about me. I'm still going to stay off the page for now; nothing good can come of me trying to discuss it with someone who is either angry at me or doubts my good faith or just is disinterested in alternate points of view. Thanks again. Unschool (talk) 00:35, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Krzyzowiec&diff=248116337&oldid=248116301

Very fast reaction, lol.

--Krzyzowiec (talk) 05:29, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

We are discussing a proposed edit on the following page: Talk:Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now. Please contribute in a constructive manner. Thank you, and don't forget to sign your messages on the Talk page with four tildes. ~~~~ Marx0728 (talk) 00:56, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Re:Jenny Agutter

My apologies for the hiatus the other day. You're right, I should have known better than to get mixed up in all that business. TheRetroGuy (talk) 18:53, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

This is Wikipedia, not Obamapedia

I see your message that you left me. This is Wikipedia, not Obamapedia. We do not know that campaign supporters are manipulating Wikipedia to help Obama but we do know that people are removing neutral material that even has a hint of negativity AND removing comments on the discussion page.

I have no desire to BLP Obama. However, we do need a neutral encyclopedia.

The material that BBBH added was in the sub-article and has been impecabbly referenced. The material is not libelous. It is factual. Campaign strategy is not illegal. Politicians do it all the time. It is notable that Obama used a new strategy, that is, throwing others off the ballot.

If you believe the above fact belongs, you should insert it back in.

Note that I am not opposed to Obama. I am opposed to cover up. I am opposed to saying Obama is a Muslim. I am looking for balance and the fact that BBBH inserted is fair and neutral. We have the beginning of a consensus. You, me, BBBH. BBBH is a little crude and unrefined but his idea was sound. Midemer (talk) 03:04, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

troubling

i find it very troubling that people would remove article talk page comments, remove an edit, and ban an editor (midimer). if this is not censorship, it has the exact effect that censorship would create. wikipedia is no body's campaign website, obama nor mccain. BBBH (talk) 14:13, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree. This is no time to be creating an atmosphere of censorship. I had been silently monitoring the techniques of a few editors on the Obama talk page for a while. The pattern is always the same.
1. They wait until someone makes an edit or a comment that contradicts their ideas.
2. They revert the edit, or in the case of comments, begin a campaign of alternative comments to give the impression of consensus.
3. They then wait for the next comment and begin throwing out wikipedia policy after policy, which they have already prepared in advance.
4. They attack the editor, calling him a troll or disruptive and sometimes they are uncivil.
5. If the editor doesn't go away, they usually find a way to get the editor blocked. This is usually highly effective on new users, but I have seen them do it to more experianced users as well.

The trick is to not fall into their trap. You can say your piece, but the problem is that they only deal with one editor at a time, so they can basically pick away at that editor and then deal with the next one when he comes along. This is a highly effective strategy that is working for them. I suggest that we continue to make suggestions and wait until a new consensus is reached. The problem with these editors is that they are unwilling to compromise at all, even on the obvious points. My argument is that the Obama article is sugar-coated and not NPOV, especially if alternative arguments are not included in the article.--Jojhutton (talk) 14:34, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

agree

i agree with you about tactics. this is why you or others must cite the other users which become too discouraged to edit. remember me, because i am getting too discouraged to edit. i brought up a legitimate idea. we need an objective piece for every politician. i don't give republicans a free ride, just that i have energy to do only 1 at a time. but these people (who may not be supporters, but act just as a partisan supporter/manipulator would do) chase people away from wp (like they will to me). this shows that they are disruptive. disruption is a reason for banning. good luck BBBH (talk) 14:44, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

another excuse that you forgot is to call people socks. i am from the midwest, from the show me state.BBBH (talk) 14:44, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors. Thank you..

There are numerous examples on this talk page and others of 'bad faith' accusations. Please remember to assume good faith. --neon white talk 16:44, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

WP:DTTR

Please don't template the regulars, especially when it is based on a misunderstanding of what is and is not canvassing. I form part of a recent article patrol, and I was notifying other members of the group of partisan editing at Project Vote. This is an essential and necessary part of Wikipedia. That particular article doesn't get much activity, despite its association with Barack Obama, but when it does, it is always partisan screed that needs attention. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:11, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, but . . .

I am always happy to receive a barnstar, but I am puzzled. Why did you think I deserved it? With no message, I am left baffled. Unschool (talk) 16:59, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Joj, I somehow missed your reply to my above question. First of all, once again, I am honored that you saw fit to give me a barnstar. (I hope you haven't changed your mind. :-) ) Anyway, what I was saying about the message is found in the template code that you insert when you provide a barnstar. For example, if you were pasting the code below onto a user's page to give them a barnstar:
{{subst:The Original Barnstar|message ~~~~}}
you notice the word "message" is in the coding. What pretty much everyone does is replace that word "message" with whatever text they want—usually providing an explanation for why they are awarding that barnstar—and the barnstar textbox automatically expands to accomodate the message, regardless of size. For some examples, if you are interested, you can look at this page and see the specific reasons that an editor was given a particular barnstar. Given the Barnstar you chose for me, I was guessing that it was for this set of questions that I posed during our JWB discussion, but since you left no message, I was unsure, and that was why I asked.
I haven't seen you since I came back from my week away earlier this month, but I saw that you and Arcayne appeared to have mended fences. I'm glad to see that. While heated arguments may not be favored on Wikipedia by the powers that be, the fact is that, people like you and Arcayne and sometimes (though increasingly, less so) myself who grow aggitated in the midst of discussions do add something important here as well: Passion. And while no one wants to admit it, this project will be the better for it if editors really, truly care about the exact contents of its articles. I'm happy to have made your acquaintence, and look forward to working with you again. Unschool (talk) 05:30, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Re: Citation Barnstar - Thanks

Thanks for the Citation Barnstar. I believe I've reviewed all of the Richard Nixon references for consistency of formatting and completeness. I've added some references to the NASA section, but a few more are needed. — ERcheck (talk) 23:44, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

JWB article discussion

Please stop attacking me. In fact, avoid posting any comments about, to or in the general area of my comments. Be assured I am most certainly ignoring most of yours. If you make another uncivil comment towards me, you will be blocked. I've apologized for not initially giving you more faith, but the bad faith you have earned since then is going to cause more problems than it solves. Knock it off. Consider this your only warning to stop commenting about the editor and focus on the article content, - Arcayne (cast a spell) 03:21, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

The attacking is in your mind. You need to relax and stop creating a disturbance.--Jojhutton (talk) 02:24, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your words in the AN/I. You are very gracious, and now I feel a little bad for having assumed the worst of some of your edits. Again, thanks. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 21:35, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Its usually the rule rather the exception, to have editors argue over one detail after another. Just because we disagree on the Booth article, doesn't mean that I don't agree with a lot of what you do. Don't worry and just remember that everyone is not out to get you. If the anon is bugging you, just ignore him. I had no idea that it was as bad as it is, but I still don't think that the anon is 100% wrong. So have a good day and enjoy wikipedia.--Jojhutton (talk) 22:05, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Re: Grossmont Union High School District

I am concerned by Jojhutton's repeated deletions of my contributions to this article. Contrary to his opinion, I believe that the text I added is written in a neutral point of view and without bias. I have provided thorough and adequate references to my contributions. Furthermore, I find that all of the added information is highly relevant and provides a more detailed and critical analysis of the subject with regard to its recent history and other important and related current events. Rather than simply delete the text, which I see as unsatisfactory and unhelpful, I propose that he or another user take the time to edit it so as to render it more neutral and less biased. The Grossmont Unified High School District (GUHSD) has been the subject of controversies and scandals, which were not sufficiently addressed in the article prior to my contributions. Moreover, GUHSD has, without question, entered the realm of politics in recent years. Not to provide a discussion of its politicization would be detrimental to its understanding. User:Oleander arms —Preceding undated comment was added at 02:12, 12 November 2008 (UTC).

My response is on Talk:Grossmont Union High School District.--Jojhutton (talk) 02:42, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Dispute Resolution Process

Hello, Jojhutton. I've noticed that you have taken a step in the Dispute Resolution Process by posting in WQA. Please note that it is recommended that you advise the other party of your complaint filing so that they are aware of it, and so that they have a chance to respond.

If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. -t BMW c- 12:40, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

JWB escape theories

Well, Joj, I hate to have to tell you this, but when I got back I read some comments that User:JGHowes had posted over at Talk:John Wilkes Booth, and I'm convinced. I hate to leave you high and dry, but my practice is to listen to all sides until I think I know what is right, and now I'm convinced. However, the fact that I'm now on User:Arcayne's side of this particular argument now does not mean that I think that his bullying attitude toward you should be excused. I suspect that his problem is that, when he is so utterly convinced that he's correct, that he just thinks that everyone else should be able to see what he believes is so obvious. (And, truth be told, I think you can also have this tendency at times, though it does not bring out rudeness in you, as it does in Arcayne.) I was particularly upset that he indicated that his problem with you was not just in what you wanted to do, but why you wanted to do it. I still don't get his point on that.

Anyway, you are a great editor, with a great Wikifuture in front of you. I think it's obvious, given our demonstrated interests, that we'll run into each other from time to time. I look forward to it. Unschool (talk) 01:06, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Is ANI discussion resolved?

Hi. I've been learning that the wiki process is results oriented. Thus, I'm wondering if the result of the BRD process at the infobox guideline is satisfactory for you, perhaps resolving the thread on ANI? The main reason why I am asking is that I'd like to see it, the ANI thread, marked resolved; iff OK with you (perhaps with a reply to Bugs post). Guidelines are an evolving thing, and I don't think anyone has edited against consensus discussions on the whole (as relevant discussions have occurred across different pages), only just the few of us trying to figure out what the consensuses actually are, needed to be or needs to be.... Modocc (talk) 05:45, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Sure, I saw no problem with the rewrite.--Jojhutton (talk) 15:39, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Is_this_block_warning_warranted.3F

As a courtesy, I wanted to let you know I have minorly criticised you in my post in this section.

It could be that my criticism is misplaced. If so, please let me know and when I'm next online, I'll happily amend and apologise. --Dweller (talk) 13:13, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I decided that criticising others in my post was unconstructive, so I removed the comment. --Dweller (talk) 15:43, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. Reasonable voices always welcomed. :-) --Dweller (talk) 19:10, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Nixon

Hi, you've nominated Nixon article for GA, the legacy section is small and this may very well get pointed-out in the review. thought i'd give you a heads-up, Tom B (talk) 14:18, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Bush

Hello. You removed my edit to GWB regarding his popularity on leaving the White House. You said that the previous sentence only is required. I disagree. My information adds to what is currently there and cannot be merely implied from what it now says. Please explain why you removed the additional material on my talk page. Thanks. --bodnotbod (talk)

You failed to mention WP:BLP. Please explain why your bised edit must remain.
That's a long policy. Which part of it do you think applies? It is not a "biased edit". The fact was widely reported, see http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=us&q=%22most+unpopular+president%22&btnG=Search+News (the top hit claims he is only the second most unpopular, but others say the most. The reason why I think it should remain are 1) it is true 2) it is a notable fact which, if missing, means the article is less complete. Am I to take it that if I replace the fact with yet more references you will remove it again? --bodnotbod (talk) 15:03, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
You accuse me of being biased and then add something to the article relating to his high approval rating. In what sense is my edit not allowable whilst yours is? Please explain. I don't have any problem with your information, by the way, and won't touch it. --bodnotbod (talk) 19:17, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Please see this article by Gallup.com. [1]. The statement that Bush had the lowest approval rating is no longer true because of a last minute bump in the polls. Sorry.--Jojhutton (talk) 19:21, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Excellent thanks. It says "Only Richard Nixon was explicitly less popular at the time of his exit than Bush is today.". Definitely worth including. --bodnotbod (talk) 20:43, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

43 President

I really appreciate the information you have added to Barack Obama 2009 presidential inauguration. However, I am not sure what usefulness it has. It seems to be rather trivial information and it doesn't help the reader's understanding of the subject of the article. I really do find the information fascinating but I think it should belong on a different article, perhaps on List of Presidents of the United States. Thank you, Bovineboy2008 (talk) 18:01, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

There is no such policy that forbids this information. That is the article that it belongs in. As a historian, I am appalled by the president's apparant lack of knowledge on U.S. History. I have no idea why. Perhaps it comes from his many years going to school abroad, but he has a serious lapse in that department. There is no other article or section to place this information. It is best suited there. Regardless of party or support, the sentence was cited properly and has been placed in its proper section. Any removal means that those removing it are not interested in improving wikipedia, but are only here to protect Obama's image.--Jojhutton (talk) 18:07, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
I too cringed when I heard that, Joj. I stayed home from work to watch the events of the day with my decidedly disinterested 14-year old son, and immediately told him of the error. Then I decided that Obama couldn't possibly have not known this, but chose to say it this way because he thought that most Americans, in their ignorance, would have thought him mistaken if he had not counted GC twice. (Can you say, "wishful thinking" on Unschool's part?) I wish he had just said that, "This oath of office has now been taken 64 times" (or whatever the right number is, I'm not going to calculate it precisely right now). That would've provoked some thoughtful discussion on a few of the creampuff "news" shows like Today, and maybe people would have learned some history. Oh well. Unschool 09:12, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks unschool, its nice to hear from you again too.--Jojhutton (talk) 13:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Re: Sockpuppet investigation

I know you don't want me to comment here, but I simply wanted to apologize for the accusation, as the case has now been closed and the account deemed unrelated. I hope we can work together in the future, or atleast not butt heads too much. Grsz11 02:06, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I would have come to the same conclusion, given the timing of the vandalism, but I hope you realize that I am not the only one who feels that some articles are overly "protected". Compromise is a major foundation to this web site and comments such as this [[2]] are usually counter productive and do not show an attitude of compromise. My rollback of your previous comments was probably just pouting on my part, but the policy on rollback allows me to use the rollback on my user space, regardless of reason.--Jojhutton (talk) 05:54, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Change?

What gives? Unschool 07:09, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh. Well lately I have just been a bit turned off to the whole wikipedia process. I still wish to participate and edit articles, but some of what goes on here gets a bit too serious for my taste sometimes. Who knows, maybe I will change my mind in the future. Wikipedia isn't all that bad though. A person can do great work here. Keep up the good work and I will be looking forward to hearing from you soon.--Jojhutton (talk) 14:13, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost, February 8, 2009

The Wikipedia Signpost
The Wikipedia Signpost
Weekly Delivery


Volume 5, Issue 6 8 February 2009 About the Signpost
News and notes: Elections, licensing update, and more Wikipedia in the news: Wikipedia's future, WikiDashboard, and "wiki-snobs" 
Dispatches: April Fools 2009 mainpage WikiProject Report: WikiProject Music 
Features and admins The Report on Lengthy Litigation 
Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.--ragesoss (talk) 15:35, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) at 22:13, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

RFC on Barack Obama talk summary censorship and deletion

Per Wikipedia Guidelines I posted a bio RFC and a PM to BubbleHead about BubbleHead's summary deletion without (IMHO) justification. Thanks for any support. Eclectix (talk) 23:53, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

How strange.

because I have NO idea what you're talking about. There was a collapsed thread I added to on AN/IBarack Obama's talk, but only a moment after you did. Of course, I gave an opinion contrary to yours there, so that might be the 'incident' you refer to, but of course, you wouldn't warn as a matter of tactics, now would you? ThuranX (talk) 02:04, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Harm. I regard your behvior, as that of a POV pusher attempting to intimidate others. Don't come around again to play these games with me. You want to make the President out to be some seditious pretender king, and most of wikipedia opposes it. Now you're resorting to policy based threats. The Archiving threads convention is a convention, and that's all. Finally, you'll notice that I did NOT, in fact, add to the archived section, but below the close archive tag. My post in no way disrupts the archived section. You can make your apology your last comment on my talk page. Ever. ThuranX (talk) 02:24, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Since you're illiterate busy making me look bad, I'll quote myself: " I did NOT, in fact, add to the archived section, but below the close archive tag. My post in no way disrupts the archived section.". You may apologize now. ThuranX (talk) 02:48, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for stiking the comment, but it wasn't even me who moved your comment. It seems that you may have taken what I was trying to say the wrong way. I have nothing against you, and I hope that we can work together in the future.--Jojhutton (talk) 03:55, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Bobblehead has been made aware of the consequences of his actions. My apologies to you for the accusations of manipulations of the evidence. You, however, continue to be completely wrong about my initial action - since you linked the diff you are well aware that my edit was outside the archiving, nad thus your entire comment wrong. ThuranX (talk) 03:56, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

It seems that you have taken much offense to what I was hhoing was a friendly comment on your user talk page. You have taken great lengths to clear your good name. I hope to leave it at that. You were not the only user who I gave a reminder to, so I was not picking on you by any means. I think that we can work together on many projects. You seem to be a very good and experianced editor and I hope that we can all learn a lesson from this experiance.--Jojhutton (talk) 04:02, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
I have no interest in ever having contact with you again. I find you to be a coward, afraid to admit your mistakes, while demanding everyone else admit theirs. Not interested in experiencing your brand of hypocrisy again, there's plenty enough already on Wikipedia. ThuranX (talk) 04:18, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
I am sorry that you feel that way. As you were leaving this comment on my talk page, you may be happy to know that I was in the process of reviewing the edit in question, and it turns out that you were correct. You did not add the comment to the archive. So for that I am sorry. It does not, however, excuse your incivility and attacks. Also your false comments about me here[3] were also not appreciated. Tell me where I stated that Obama was not the legitamate President. Also, I never templated you.--Jojhutton (talk) 04:28, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

More on Obama RfC

Then tell me, what was this user trying to sway? Was it a discussion? A vote? None of the above? You need to stop using foul language, especially on other users talk pages.--Jojhutton (talk) 01:51, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

He is trying to sway an RfC. Let me repeat that: an RfC. And that is forbidden. Take the time to read the messages. Take the time to see that he's talking about an RfC. That's a community debate. Users can notify others in a neutral manner about an RfC, but they cannot do so from a specific point of view. And tell me how many other users' foul language you have jumped on. Did you jump on a conservative (who in your imagined "liberal bias" that I have) I have argued with on the Obama talk page, when that user used the word "f--k" about a dozen times? Did you chastise that user? Or is it just those of us with your imagined "liberal bias" who cannot use an off-color word from time to time. Hold on, let me check ... nope, not one word of criticisim for all those uses of "f--k". (I hope "f--k" doesn't offend your sensitive ears. Since I'm sure you've never spoken the word, you may not recognize it). Ward3001 (talk) 02:37, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
It seems that some users cannot make a point without using colorful mataphores. Yes I have reported other users in the past, but it seems that foul language is not against policy on wikipedia, but I think I still have a say as to what goes on my user space, so I would appreciate just a bit of respect in that regard, regardless of whether we agree on an issue or not.
That being said, exactly which Rfc was the user trying to sway? Understand that the user is some what inexperianced, so he may have been a bit naive in his wording, but we should not bite the newcomers. We should encourage debate and allow all sides to give their opinions. I am afraid that it is not happening on the Obama talk page.--Jojhutton (talk) 03:04, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

THIS RfC. The same RfC that he refers to above in his message on this very page. I believe you are a reasonably intelligent and experienced Wikipedia user. Is it really that hard to find out that someone has tried to post an RfC? As for not biting newcomers, I agree that users who inadvertently add an unsourced phrase, or accidentally delete information, or don't know how to cite a source, or other such errors frequently made by new users should be gently corrected. But a user who comes on with a very strong position on a very contrversial issue, and who knows that there is such a thing as an RfC, isn't exactly naive to Wikipedia policies and procedures. Did you know what an RfC was after you made a dozen or so edits? I certainly didn't, and I think that applies to almost everyone. This is not someone who doesn't know what he's doing on Wikipedia. If he knows what an RfC is and how to set it up, he should know about canvassing.
And I'm waiting to see if you criticize the user who used "f--k" so many times. Not that he deserves it. In fact, I think he was quite justified in using it. But let's see if you discuss it with this person. I'm waiting. But I'm not holding my breath. Ward3001 (talk) 03:19, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I have recently conceded your argument on the Rfc. Yet I must confess that I am still learning about wikipedia, so I really did not know what Rfc was. Sorry for the confussion. I am a bit confused as to who you are refering to in regards to using the F-Word. I have no idea what you are talking about.--Jojhutton (talk) 03:23, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
It's not really that important about the F-word. As I said, I was not bothered in the least when he used it, and I thought he was justified in doing so. My point is, I believe you criticized me because you didn't like the rest of my message. If you and I had agreed on everything for the last year or so, you probably wouldn't even have noticed. Liberals (and I'm not one) aren't the only ones who are biased. That having been said, I think we have discussed this enough, so I'm fine if all of us move on to something more important. Have a good day. Ward3001 (talk) 03:29, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Your message was understood. I know where you stand on this issue, as you know my stance. I just revert potty language on my user space, I still have no idea who you were refering to before, although I have an idea. I have reported foul language in the past, but like I said before, wikipedia is not censored, so there is little I can do on most pages, but as a rule, users have a bit more control over what is said on their own user space. Thanks for jawing with me, it was fun. I hope to work together again in the future.--Jojhutton (talk) 03:35, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Recent comments

While they may not be entirely without provocation, some of the recent comments from editors on this page are inappropriate, falling into the realms of WP:CIV and WP:NPA. How about everybody takes a little break? Grsz11 02:51, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Grsz11, I appreciate the support on that issue. Although I know we don't always agree (or ever), it seems that we at least respect each other.--Jojhutton (talk) 03:07, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Hey, I just noticed this edit. Thuran was being a royal dick, and nobody should have to deal with that crap. Thanks, Grsz11 02:23, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Not a problem. He was blocked for 72 hrs, but he is back now. No contact with him yet.--Jojhutton (talk) 02:30, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost — February 16, 2009

The Signpost
Volume 5, Issue 7
Weekly Delivery
2009-02-16

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist.
If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.

Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) at 06:56, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

William henry harrison

Can you please provide a source to show that Obama was a British subject at the time of his birth? I do agree that he was a dual citizen - but not with great britian. And if he was he would not be a British "Subject", but a British Citizen. I think you are misunderstand the purpose of the statement in the article. Harrison was the last president to be born while the united states was still under the rule of the british crown. There are other dual citizen presidents besides Obama. Charles Edward (Talk) 20:41, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

See the British Nationality Act 1948. As Kenya was in 1960, a British colony.--Jojhutton (talk) 20:46, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
I am familiar with it, but Commonwealth citizenship is not the same as being a subject of the British Crown. Can you please provide a source? Charles Edward (Talk) 20:50, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Here is the entire article [4]. It says "Subject".--Jojhutton (talk) 21:03, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
I am aware of the language of the law. But refer to Part 2, Section 5, Clause B. Is there a source to show that Obama was registered with the British consulate within one year of his birth and completed the necessary documentation to attain the status of British Subject? If not, he is an eligible citizen of the British Commonwealth of Nations, but not a Subject of the British Crown - He would be Subject to the British Monarch, but not as a British Subject, but the subject of King under a separate and sovereign realm. I do not rule out this possibility, but I am well read, and unaware of this being proven as a fact. I quick google search on my own turns up nothing to this effect. If he is or was a British Subject, I would like to see a source besides blogs and other speculations. In the meantime I have adjusted the text of the William Henry Harison article, but would like to change it back to it's original form. Would you object to that? Charles Edward (Talk) 22:06, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
You misread the section. It says that "If the father is a citizen by decent only". In otherwords, if the father was also born outside the commonwealth, then the birth must be registered. Look at it very closely.--Jojhutton (talk) 01:58, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
There still has to be a registration take place when the birth occurs outside the commonwealth, even if eligibility is not an issue. There is no evidence that such a registration occurred. There is no evidence that Obama was ever registered as a legal citizen of the British Empire, despite his eligibility. I have read up on this in several areas and a best I can tell, at the most this topic is still open to debate. Right now the Harrison article is changed to say that Harrison was the last President born prior to American Independence, which conveys the intended thought in a different manner. We can just leave it like that for. Thanks for the information! Charles Edward (Talk) 03:10, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
There is no evidence, because it didn't need to happen. He was automatically a citizen at birth. The registration is only for those who are born to fathers who are citizens, but also born outside the country.--Jojhutton (talk) 03:19, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost — February 23, 2009

This week, the Wikipedia Signpost published volume 5, issue 8, which includes these articles:

The kinks are still being worked out in a new design for these Signpost deliveries, and we apologize for the plain format for this week.

Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) at 01:54, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Your attitude

Hi. We disagree and you have reverted me, but that's fair enough because I have reverted you too. But what I do have a problem with is your comments such as "That is your POV please leave it alone" - why should "my POV" be any less important than yours? Have you some undeclared authority over me in terms of Wikipedia editing? Similarly "I say please and still someone pushes their POV. Please do not revert until there is a consensus" -- You mean everyone should agree with you or shut up? Mark83 (talk) 03:19, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I could cite Bold/Revert/Discuss to you, but Im sure that you already know it, which is why I was so confused at why you would continue to change the caption to your point of view. Yes I said it again. It is your point of view. The idea of refering to people by their titles at the time of the referance is older than dirt itself. There is no wikipedia policy that covers this, so we use common sense.--Jojhutton (talk) 03:54, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost — 2 March 2009

This week, the Wikipedia Signpost published volume 5, issue 9, which includes these articles:

Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) at 20:01, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXVI (February 2009)

The February 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:40, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Harry Morgan

The guy who tried to foment an edit war on that page is the guy who I twice reported and got blocked for inappropriate user names. He's doing this just to get revenge. But I did not fall into his 3RR trap. I've stopped watching the article. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 17:23, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I personnally did not accuse anyone of violating 3RR, although i must admit that I was thinking about it. I was not trying to trap anyone, although I am a bit confused as to why you were edit warring. That is not like you. You are usually concerned with reverting vandalism. As to the information, I just feel that it was not relevant to the article.--Jojhutton (talk) 17:48, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Not you, the new guy. In the last few days, he came aboard twice with offensive user names, and I reported him for it both times and he was blocked both times. So this is his way of getting back at me. But I stopped after the 2nd revert, as it was obviously pointless. I thought it was relevant in the sense that Harry Morgan changed his name from Henry Morgan to avoid confusion with another actor, and ironically "Morgan" was not the birth name of either one of them - in fact, Henry Morgan hated the fake last name that was forced upon him. I just thought that was an interesting point, and I was outvoted. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 18:39, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Thats happened to many in the acting business. Not many use their real names, although that trend may be changing. It all has to do with regestering a name with the Screen actors Guild. No two actors can use the same name, unless he/she is an offspring, but even then they use the Jr. Some children of actors have even adopted their parents "stage" last names. Martin and Charlie Sheen come to mind, since their real last name is Estevez.--Jojhutton (talk) 18:52, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Right. The most obvious one, to my mind, is James Stewart, who changed his named to Stewart Granger, because there already was a James Stewart of some renown. More recently, there was Michael Fox, who adopted the name Michael J. Fox to avoid confusion with another actor. Then there was Tom Conway, who changed his name to Tim Conway for the same reason. Surely there are many others. In regard to the article, I was irritated at being issued a 3RR warning when I had only reverted twice. And once I figured out what was going on, I abandoned it. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 18:58, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Nominations for the Military history WikiProject coordinator election

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on 13 March!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:17, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost — 9 March 2009

This week, the Wikipedia Signpost published volume 5, issue 10, which includes these articles:

Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) at 23:55, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

new messages box

Please remove the box. It is funny, but it does confuse people (i.e. me) Thanks

AfD nomination of Sharon Davis

I have nominated Sharon Davis, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sharon Davis. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. pablohablo. 15:31, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost — 16 March 2009

The Wikipedia Signpost  — 16 March 2009

Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) at 23:04, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Obama

I have an outline of a lengthy and legitimate article at User:THF/Obama with not a single "nutball conspiracy theory" in it. I'll draft it off-wiki this weekend. I encourage editors to participate in this project by sending me sources (or perhaps fully drafted paragraphs) rather than battling at DRV or on the Talk:Obama page about intermediate stages. If we present a fully-sourced, well-written neutral article, there shouldn't be a problem -- and if there is, it will be pretty damning of Wikipedia. THF (talk) 15:49, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Abacus

I don't disagree with this reversion but it is probably good faith rather than vandalism. The abacus, in fact, is "digital" in operation and is sometimes referred to as such by technical people, albeit in a whimsical way. SpinningSpark 00:58, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject coordinator election

The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has started. We will be selecting coordinators from a pool of eighteen to serve for the next six months. Please vote here by 23:59 (UTC) on Saturday, 28 March! Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 01:18, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Military history Coordinator Elections

As a member of the WikiProject who is running for coordinator it is so go great to see people getting involved. It seems that some people truly care about the future of the WikiProject Keep Up the Good work. Have A Great Day! Lord Oliver The Olive Branch 19:16, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 23 March 2009

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 04:52, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Vader

Regardless of whether he was referred to as Vader, it was Stewie. However, that's all beside the point, as the section is for canonical portrayals of Vader, which this is not. You don't seen listings for Vader in various fanfilms or other parodies, do you? Do not add this back in, as it does not belong in the article. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 23:31, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Also, you should take a look at the (oftentimes heated) discussions on the James T. Kirk talk page - consensus seems to be limiting portrayals to canonical/licensed dramatic presentations - which the Family Guy episodes most certainly are not. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 23:35, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
First of all, if you wish to leave me a message, I accept disscussion, but please leave it all at once. It is very annoying to get an edit conflict on my OWN user space, because you didn't say all you wanted to the first time.
Second, it does not matter what your personal opinion is on the subject. What matters are the facts. Lucas approved the episode, MacFarlane portrayed Vader, and consensus on the Kirk page is not binding on any other page. If you are not happy with that, then I suggest that you make a suggestion to change policy. I don't care what happens on the Kirk page. Lucas approved the Family Guy episode, and the character is refered to as Vader from beggining to end.--Jojhutton (talk) 23:41, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Pardon me for remembering something after I typed the first message and showing you what the consensus is for situations like this. However, since you are the one wanting to change policy, follow your own suggestions. However, according to the credits posted on IMDB, I see no listing for Darth Vader - Stewie, yes; Vader, no. As the addition you wish to make is incorrect, it will be reverted should you add it back in (unless there is a major policy shift, which I doubt). TheRealFennShysa (talk) 23:49, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
You are using one wiki to support your posistion on another wiki. You really must be new to all of this.--Jojhutton (talk) 01:19, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
The IMDB is not a wiki, since it is not open to anyone to edit it freely. And from the looks of it, consensus went against you last night on the Vader issue, so hopefully you'll see the error of your ways. And in regards to someone being "new to all of this", I've been here five years, to your one. Do the math, and keep your insults to yourself. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 15:21, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Did you come here to gloat, because your attitude is unappreciated and you act like you are not looking to work together. rather you act like a general who just won a small skirmish but treat it like you just won the war.--Jojhutton (talk) 01:56, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Cult of personality

Please cease engaging in an edit war on Cult of personality forthwith, and take disputes to the talk page. Thank you, Steven Walling (talk) 03:42, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Joj, while you aren't the only one edit warring on the article, it's best you stop. I don't think either picture (Reagan or Obama) is particularly appropriate. Neither are in the same style as the other on the article and thus, not really relevant. Grsz11 03:52, 29 March 2009 (UTC)


Define edit warring. Wikipedia defines it as 3 reverts in one day. Was that done?--Jojhutton (talk) 04:51, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Edit warring isn't a set number, it's a mindset. You didn't violate WP:3RR, which is the blockable offense of edit warring, but that doesn't mean you weren't edit warring. Grsz11 22:39, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 30 March 2009

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 20:50, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXVII (March 2009)

The March 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 02:55, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

April 2009

Please do not delete content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to River Shannon, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. Mr. Krabs (talk) 21:55, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

sorry, it was a huggle miscommunication.--Jojhutton (talk) 00:29, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Apology accepted and forgiven. =) - Eugene Krabs (talk) 14:32, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 6 April 2009

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 19:13, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Jojhutton. You have new messages at Radiant chains's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Radiant chains (talk) 16:52, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 13 April 2009

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 16:26, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Hitler

Someone at the de-wiki asked to add the pronunciation at the en-wp. -- Emdee (talk) 23:47, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Thats fine. It looked strange, I viewed it as vandalsim, but will not revert the edit again if you say it was requested.--Jojhutton (talk) 23:57, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Fake notification

Yes, it is YOUR userspace, but it is OUR project. So please be so kind and remove that or mark it, it's not even very funny. -- Emdee (talk) 23:58, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Your phony message on your talk page is inappropriate

Please do not restore your bogus message on your talk page that I have removed. It is misleading and inappropriate. I see you've been advised of this in the past. You will be blocked if this continues. Toddst1 (talk) 14:34, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Thers is no policy that does not allow it. This is my user space. Thank you for understanding.--Jojhutton (talk) 14:35, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

You have been blocked

For deliberately misrepresenting external links. Toddst1 (talk) 14:52, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

You have exceded your authority by edit warring. I see no reason why you have violated my user space. I will report you to ANI, but you have conveniently blocked me from doing so.--Jojhutton (talk) 14:57, 17 April 2009 (UTC)


Now I am being ignored. I have been given no way to even contest my block. Not right.--Jojhutton (talk) 15:08, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

If you wish to contest your block, you may use the {{unblock}} template. Toddst1 (talk) 15:12, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Not that you may care, but here is the ANI discussion that I refered to before [5]. It is underUnacceptable Spam on User Talk Page By the results of this discussion (Less than Two months ago), I violated no policy. --Jojhutton (talk) 16:16, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Jojhutton (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

The editor who blocked me did so for his own personal reasons and there was no community discussion on this matter. He did so without any warnings. Also there is no specific policy that disallows external links on my user space.

Decline reason:

Block endorsed; the contested link was disruptive. Blocks do not require discussion, and you do not own either this or any other Wikipedia page.  Sandstein  15:24, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Hi Jo, I've seen the misleading (prank?) "you have new messages" notice before and it's not always appreciated. But as you've indicated, it's your userspace. Linking the prank to an external website does seem clearly inappropriate though, so I think you should just agree not to include the link that way and move on. Take care. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:56, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment. Yet is it blockable? And if so, why did a former ANI discussion not say so?--Jojhutton (talk) 17:15, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Can you link to the ANI discussion?
If there's a violation of the rules (guidelines) and an editor refuses to correct it, I would think that would be a blockable offesne. Really, anything is blockable I suppose, the question is whether it's an appropriate block. :) I doubt anyone reviewing this case will overturn a block based on your refusal to remove a duplicitous link to an external video. I would suggest removing the offending link. Trickery to an external link is not going to pass muster. But I suspect you could include it another way as long as you make it apparent that it's an external link. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:36, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Here. Its under Unacceptable Spam on User Talk Page. Two months ago.--Jojhutton (talk) 17:43, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
You are correct. It has been reviewed in the past and there was no consensus. I hope you will speedily be unblocked, and that those objecting to the link will either move on or get a consensus that it is or is not allowed. You might consider whether it's helpful, but I appreciate your willingness to stand on principle. It's not a principle I support :) but Wikipedia has so far refused to abide my viewpoints. :) I'm going to click the link and watch the video as penance. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:34, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

{{unblock|The purpose for blocking editors is to, I assume, prevent vandalism. Yet it seems that my only alledged crime is that I want to keep an external link on MY user space. First, it also seems odd that the only page that I can now edit (MY talk page), is the page in question. About 75% of all of my edits are fighting vandalism (Using Huggle). Its very counter-productive to block a white listed user for adding something that is not against policy to HIS OWN user space. So now real vandals are vandalising pages that I could be protecting right now. Second, I provided a link to a previous ANI Discussion on this very topic. An admin decided that it was not a matter for admins to deal with. In other words "No rule against keeping it". Regardless of the outcome, I will be making a report to ANI about the abusive admin.}}

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):

Per AN/I discussion. Rollback restored as well.

Request handled by: —Travistalk 19:18, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Unblocking administrator: Please check for active autoblocks on this user after accepting the unblock request.

Civility

This edit is clearly inappropriate. Please review WP:CIVIL and refrain from name-calling. I don't know which editors you are referring to, but talking about others as "nut jobs" is not appropriate here. As you are already blocked for a different issue, please take this seriously. I also recommend you review WP:NPA. You may be blocked without warning for further violations. Toddst1 (talk) 17:40, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Now what do you have agaisnt me? Did I wrong you in some way?--Jojhutton (talk) 17:41, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Nope. I have nothing against you. The edit above is the issue that brought me to your page in the first place. I'm not trying to pick on you, but since you don't seem to be taking responsibility for the issue above, I thought it appropriate to document why I came here in the first place. Please WP:AGF. Toddst1 (talk) 17:44, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Right, and do you add messages to the editors who call conservatives names, or am I just lucky?
Did you review the ANI thread that I linked above? It proves that this issue about the link has been covered and has been dismissed.--Jojhutton (talk) 17:47, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
(edit conflict) While I disagree with the wording Jojhutton used, I hardly think it rises to the level of a blockable offense. Considering some of the sophomoric comments made by on-air personalities this week, the term "nut job" would seem to be appropriate, wouldn't you agree? As for the misleading new messages banner, I agree that it is extremely annoying and that it should not be allowed, but there seems to be no policy prohibiting it, as far as I can tell. —Travistalk 18:07, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Assuming good faith, I read "left wing nut jobs" to refer to those liberals in the world at large who, as Jojhutton says, "can't handle" Fox News. It's only uncivil if directed at Wikipedia editors, the purpose being to get along here. Just as people shouldn't be uncivil, it's best not to be too eager to find incivility. Wikidemon (talk) 18:13, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Most folks know I'm sure no fan of the Wiki-servatives, but I'll say this piling on while the user is already dealing with an inappropriate block by the same admin is a bit out of line. Just my 2 cents. Go make change. - ℅ ✰ALLST☆R✰ echo 18:41, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
You know... saying, "This edit is clearly inappropriate. Please review WP:CIVIL and refrain from name-calling," is not actually an example of civility.

Toddst1, your good faith is clear, and I appreciate your wanting to maintain a civil atmosphere. However, I suggest a different approach if you think someone's been uncivil. Presenting them with an accusation, and pointing them to the policy is often helpful for very new editors who didn't know about it. For more experienced editors, it tends to have negative effects.

In my experience, it's much more effective to tell them that you were bothered or offended by their comment, and ask that they strike it, or something. Mentioning that you realize their intention probably wasn't to offend you or anyone is not a bad idea, but only say it if you mean it, right?

If the person doesn't respond to your polite request, then they're not being very civil, and that will be clear to everyone watching. Adding your accusation to their talk page can't really help, and it might hurt. Something to think about. -GTBacchus(talk) 18:55, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Rickroll block

This is one of the most awful blocks I've seen in quite a long time. It's interesting to note administrators hold such high and divergent standards. seicer | talk | contribs 19:01, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Now that you're unblocked, you should consider whether adding the rickroll box back is a wise thing or not. Currently, policy supports your right to do so, as does the previous ANI discussion on the matter. But it's also obvious that some folks have an issue with it and that's up to you as to whether or not continue to piss them off (over something so nontrivial I might add) or go along with the standard avoidance of pissing them off by not adding content which is objected to. - ℅ ✰ALLST☆R✰ echo 19:23, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

We should have a new discussion on the matter, but it has been disscussed several times before, and the result is always the same.--Jojhutton (talk) 19:25, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, the consensus is not to have a rule against it. That's separate from the question of whether it's a good idea. Not everything permissible is desirable. I think Allstarecho may have been asking you whether you want to keep it as a matter of judgment, not as a matter of compulsion. The only thing that I think is problematic about it would relate to newbies being confused by it. Personally, it's not something I would do with my user page, but I don't expect you to be me. -GTBacchus(talk) 19:59, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

User page vandalism

Hi. I still have your user/talk page watchlisted from yesterday and I see you've been the target of some IP vandals. As a gesture of goodwill, I've semi-protected your userpage. I'll be glad to unprotect it if you'd prefer, but it seems unlikely that you'd want an IP editing it. Toddst1 (talk) 15:04, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I have no problem with the protection. It just comes with the job of fighting vandalism.--<big>''' [[User:Jojhutton|<font color=#00D500>Jojhutton]] '''</font></big><sup><small>[[User_Talk:Jojhutton|<font color=#008800>Talk To Me!!]]</sup></small> (talk) 15:05, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Indeed. Mine is that way for the same reason. Cheers. Toddst1 (talk) 15:10, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

It's a bit late but...

The Original Barnstar
Thanks for reverting vandalism on my user page. --Abce2 (talk) 00:19, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 20 April 2009

Delivered by SoxBot II (talk) at 18:40, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jojhutton/Archive_1&oldid=1088341383"