User talk:Jojhutton/archive2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Bush[edit]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

43 President[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Thanks unschool, its nice to hear from you again too.--Jojhutton (talk) 13:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Sockpuppet investigation[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Change?[edit]

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

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)[reply]

Wikipedia Signpost, February 8, 2009[edit]

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)[reply]

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

RFC on Barack Obama talk summary censorship and deletion[edit]

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)[reply]

How strange.[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

More on Obama RfC[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Recent comments[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Wikipedia Signpost — February 16, 2009[edit]

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)[reply]

William henry harrison[edit]

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)[reply]

See the British Nationality Act 1948. As Kenya was in 1960, a British colony.--Jojhutton (talk) 20:46, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Here is the entire article [4]. It says "Subject".--Jojhutton (talk) 21:03, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Wikipedia Signpost — February 23, 2009[edit]

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)[reply]

Your attitude[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Wikipedia Signpost — 2 March 2009[edit]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

Harry Morgan[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Nominations for the Military history WikiProject coordinator election[edit]

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)[reply]

Wikipedia Signpost — 9 March 2009[edit]

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)[reply]

new messages box[edit]

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

AfD nomination of Sharon Davis[edit]

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)[reply]

Wikipedia Signpost — 16 March 2009

The Wikipedia Signpost  — 16 March 2009

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

Obama[edit]

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)[reply]

Abacus[edit]

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)[reply]

Military history WikiProject coordinator election[edit]

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)[reply]

Military history Coordinator Elections[edit]

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)[reply]

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 23 March 2009[edit]

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

Vader[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Cult of personality[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]


Define edit warring. Wikipedia defines it as 3 reverts in one day. Was that done?--Jojhutton (talk) 04:51, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 30 March 2009[edit]

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

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

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)[reply]

April 2009[edit]

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)[reply]

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

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 6 April 2009[edit]

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

Talkback[edit]

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)[reply]

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 13 April 2009[edit]

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

Hitler[edit]

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

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)[reply]

Fake notification[edit]

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)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jojhutton/archive2&oldid=1139347976"