User talk:Jojhutton/Archive 2

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

Hmmm

Kinda surprised by this. Are you just yanking my chain? Grsz11 00:56, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Nope, no mistake. You have backed me up in more than one instance. I was the one who was surprised.--Jojhutton (talk) 01:43, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Well then, glad to help! Grsz11 01:46, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Literature of the Philippines

Thank you for catching this. He's still at it, his entire edit summary is made of poor edits and cursing those who undo his poor edits. He's reverted you, too. Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 16:55, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism

I got your edit and I have replied to it.--Pokémaniac Thomas (talk) 18:56, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Hey

Hey thanks for reverting Susan Boyle Fan's edits on my page. She has been causing lots of vandalism in wikipedia lately, as I have noticed. I just warned her a few times, but you might wanna ban her. If you look in the recent edits logs, it lists her as an admin, so I don't know what to do. Thanks Math Champion (talk) 02:55, 26 April 2009 (UTC). PS: Post a note on my talk page if you replied this. Thanks

Some info

this is the editor your protecting look at his edits [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] its clear he has a vandetta against muslims and pakistanis and i will stop him with all i have 86.162.69.12 (talk) 15:04, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

could you please tell me what is the problem with my edit and why is that it constitutes vandalism?

and also why are you adding a screenshot of vista?

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Google_Earth&diff=286238529&oldid=286238330

Create g77 (talk) 15:06, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

My mistake. I reviewed the edits and your edits are not vandalism. I am sorry for the confusion.--Jojhutton (talk) 15:08, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 27 April 2009

Delivered by SoxBot II (talk) at 04:23, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!

For reverting the vandalism on my page, lol since I started using Lupins they just keep doing it.--Skater (talk) 03:46, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

No problem. It happens to me all of the time. Reverting vandals means that they attack us instead. I just take it as a sign that Im doing a good job.--Jojhutton (talk) 03:49, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Page blanked by author

Hi. Though page blanking is usually vandalism and needs to be reverted, it is worth looking first at the page history, because quite often the author has blanked his own page, as was the case with Olivia Star just now. In those cases the best thing is to tag it {{db-author}}. It can be confusing for an author who realises his page is inappropriate and blanks it, if his page is at once restored and he is accused of vandalism for the blanking and told it was unconstructive. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 20:19, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

BRHS Kid

Would somone just please tell me what was wrong with my sports addition to the Big Rapids Public School page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.100.206.171 (talk) 22:35, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Reverted edit PSPP page

Hi, please see the reason I added the {really} tag you reverted - I just posted it in the talk page of the article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:PSPP

It was probably the wrong tag, but adding the POV banner seemed like too much for just a single word/phrase. Cheers 201.251.248.195 (talk) 02:04, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXVIII (April 2009)

The April 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) 23:25, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

ty

thanks for watching my page. -CamT|C 03:26, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 11 May 2009

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 21:58, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for RVV!

Thank you very much for reverting vandalism on my talk page, and several other spots! --A More Perfect Onion (talk) 18:19, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Your welcome. Its what needs to be done. So we do it.--Jojhutton (talk) 18:20, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
I had considered posting an appropriate WikiDalek style message on the vandal's talk page. But there's better ways to acknowledge the well-earned blocking: --A More Perfect Onion (talk) 18:23, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

A More Perfect Onion has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

Betsy Rawls!

Hello, Wikieditor, I was not doing a test on this page, and I was putting a new infobox on this page to make it match with wikipedia project golf!GOLFAUTHORITY 19:14, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

No problem. Next time, it may be helpful to use the edit summery, in order to avoid confusion on such issues.--Jojhutton (talk) 19:16, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

2000-2009

i think it's time to add to it. the decade is basically over. all the other decade pages have a lot of content, why not this decade?

and nobody calls this decade the ozies or nillies. Mimzy1990 (talk) 19:18, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

No problem with adding content, yet changing the name of a section from "overview" to "Crisis" is biased.--Jojhutton (talk) 19:21, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Fair enough. Mimzy1990 (talk) 19:24, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

This Huggle Edit

I believe that edit was not an edit test; DDT is a type of pesticide. I think a regular reversion would have been better, rather than warning him about test edits. I've removed the second warning so he doesn't get confused.. anyhow, happy editing. blurredpeace ☮ 01:50, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

OK. Thanks for the clarification.--Jojhutton (talk) 02:09, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

??

User:WhatamIdoing was talking bad about me. How can you defend him? It says on the policy to only talk about relevant information regarding to improving an article. --Academiic (talk) 17:24, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I saw nothing wrong with the message left on the talk page. Your removal of this section on an admins talk page does not help your cause. I empathise with your cause. I have been accused of being a sock as well. Not once but twice. Both times I was cleared because I was innocent. If you too are innocent then you have nothing to worry about. If you still feel that you are being treated unfairly, then perhaps you can state your case on WP:ANI. Otherwise, its not a good idea to remove the section. It can and has been considered vandalism.--Jojhutton (talk) 17:41, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject User Rehab

Would you be interested in joining this project? We need more editors who share a burden for rescuing promising editors who have gotten into serious trouble because of behavioral issues. IF (a fundamental condition!) they are interested in reforming and adapting to our standards of conduct, and are also willing to abide by our policies and guidelines, rather than constantly subverting them, we can offer to help them return to Wikipedia as constructive editors. Right now many if not most users who have been banned are still active here, but they are here as socks or anonymous IPs who may or may not be constructive. We should offer them a proper way to return. If you think this is a good idea, please join us. --Abce2|AccessDenied 01:59, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Rehab User Box

National Mentoring Month Logo
National Mentoring Month Logo
This user is a participant of the WikiProject User Rehab




Feel free to put this anywhere on your user page. To edit this box for improvement click here

I Seek To Help & Repair! (talk) 06:04, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 18 May 2009

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 13:03, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Neutrality?

I've noticed that Wikipedia often pushes one view point over another, instead of giving both sides of every issue. I don't want to mislead anyone who reads what I've written, so I strive to keep things from becoming biased. Many of the articles I've read have a sad tendency to pick one view point over the other, then use quotes from people who agree with viewpoint and portray them as impartial. I'm trying to help overcome that, in my small way. Lewa.27 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:29, 20 May 2009 (UTC).

A request

Hi Jojhutton. This [9] was constructive, so please, let me take care of my talk page myself and do not remove messages from it. Thank you. Tymek (talk) 17:45, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

hard to tell, considering that this is the ENGLISH wikipedia. Won't happen again.--Jojhutton (talk) 17:47, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
In case you did not notice, the message was written to me. If you do not like people using other languages than English on their talk pages, please take it somewhere, but do not tamper with my talk page. Thank you. Tymek (talk) 18:17, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Again hard to tell on the ENGLISH wikipedia who it was addressed to. Could have been vandalism. Wouldn't be the first time.--Jojhutton (talk) 18:23, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for removing vandalism from my user page! --Susan118 (talk) 18:23, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Your very welcome.--Jojhutton (talk) 18:24, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Valid question you deleted

I did not attack that user, I asked for valid proof of documents required when posting nude pictures to the internet. Your deletion has prompted further curiosity and I will be investigating the matter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Josh2xx (talk • contribs) 02:50, 21 May 2009 (UTC)


What I posted on KUFO-FM

That was all true. The man is a self declared comic-book geek. I live near portland, and I listen to cort and Fatboy all of the time. They also DID have a weekly sho called George W. Bush, boy president. They have it for download. You just have to search for it in google or something like that, Because they don't have the link on their page anymore. --MetalManiac101 (talk) 15:03, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank You

Wow you are fast. I was going to remove it but you got there nefore me. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 17:31, 21 May 2009 (UTC)


File copyright problem with File:Wolfpack 014.JPG

File Copyright problem
File Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading File:Wolfpack 014.JPG. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 23:04, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Manatee

About the Manatee/Shaun Hannity, kudos for picking it up so quickly. No harm was intended, only a bit of tipsy humour ;) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.33.88.79 (talk) 23:22, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

72.26.72.2

This guy isn't bloced yet!? I put in a request at WP:AIV after the third one!Drew Smith What I've done 01:08, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I think he left anyway. Good job an the reverts.--Jojhutton (talk) 01:10, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
I think you beat me too it most of the time.Drew Smith What I've done 01:11, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

68.101.109.53

Please Block this IP, because it continue to vandalize project after he received his "last warning". Regards, --Aleksa Lukic (talk) 23:28, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Apparently it was determined that the user was not vandalising, but I am still not convinced. If anything, it is a content dispute, at best.--Jojhutton (talk) 23:33, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism Star

Thanks for the barnstar. Thats my first one! Drew Smith What I've done 18:56, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Thought you could use a pick up--Jojhutton (talk) 01:15, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Hello, Jojhutton. You have new messages at Unschool's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

History

Careful or you might get hit with a trout! :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:59, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

OUCH--Jojhutton (talk) 04:00, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm always hoping that someone else will answer the call for volunteers... Better them than me. Oh well. Thanks for the barnstar! :) I'm picturing Gallipoli (1981) here. I've always been a Mel Gibson fan. Wikipedia is sort of like Thunderdome at times... ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:48, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 25 May 2009

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 03:43, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:Wolfpack 014.JPG

Thanks for uploading File:Wolfpack 014.JPG. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 07:54, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

M3 festival

I agree with your point entirely about deleting articles because they are poorly written. I want to make it clear that I nominated the article for deletion based on these guidelines, and not because it was poorly written. Thank you for the point to Wikilaw. just a little insignificant 15:08, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Understood. Your reasons for nominating the article are within wikipedia guidlines. I too saw the article as an advertisment. Yet, I also saw potential in it as well. A good clean-up of the referances and nuetrality would indeed help in the long run.--Jojhutton (talk) 15:15, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

User talk:Milesawilson5

I will be watching that editor.--The Legendary Sky Attacker 02:42, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

My philosophy is to just revert and warn. Not much else we can do, but keep on eye on him anyway.--Jojhutton (talk) 02:44, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I think he has stopped.--The Legendary Sky Attacker 03:16, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 1 June 2009

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 22:33, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XXXIX (May 2009)

The May 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) 03:03, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Denmark–Mexico relations

Are you interested in finding references for Denmark–Mexico relations. It could use some help in sourcing. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 14:04, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 15 June 2009

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 11:40, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 22 June 2009

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 02:55, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Advice

Your language here [10] is inflammatory and unhelpful William M. Connolley (talk) 23:40, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you misunderstood the message. Go back and look again.--Jojhutton (talk) 02:07, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, I did not edit the Phillip E. Johnson page in April (just noticed the message), and I've had a static IP account for years (...207). This leads to a suspicion that someone is spoofing IP addresses. I always edit under my user name, EngrAtPlay. EngrAtPlay (talk) 22:50, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Leaving messages for IP addresses

Please do not leave messages for IP address-based edits. I was trying to find an article, and your message kept interjecting itself in my search. I did not edit Irvington, nor do I even know where it is.--65.219.212.233 (talk) 15:29, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

BTW, I like your user page.--65.219.212.233 (talk) 15:30, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Well someone vandalized that page from that IP. The message in question is an automatic one, made when reverting vandalism, using Huggle.--Jojhutton (talk) 19:08, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

MJ Article

Wikipedia is also a place where anyone can edit, yet this is not true on this article at this hour. In must be pointed out that the admin who protected the page first made sure that he reverted that article to the version taht he prefered, then he protected the page. The edit that he reverted was not vandalism as he had suggested, but was a good faith edit. I have a right mind to report that admin at ANI.--Jojhutton (talk) 02:43, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

If you do, please let me know on my talk page. I completly agree, that Admin hijacked the article.--MahaPanta (talk) 02:55, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Its just a short abbreviation of the United States which is commonly used, the style is the same as in other articles, also to fit the location into just 1 line as it repeats again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DinajGao (talk • contribs) 18:01, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Commonly used where? According to what manual of style? Wikipedia's own policy plus my copies of the Chicago Manual of Style and Tarabian, all say that the usage should ((City, State)). If other articles are written this way, then they also need to be fixed.--Jojhutton (talk) 19:32, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

MoS for US cities

I noticed you recently used MoS, specifically referring to WP:NCGN, as an argument for leaving out United States when quoting localities there. I would be interested in knowing where you see a rule stating that United States should be left out in anything but the city's article (as specifically stated in the intro of WP:NCGN "This page describes conventions for determining the names of Wikipedia articles on places", and the United State subsection "A United States city's article should never be titled" – ephasis mine). As I am not aware of any MoS (or for that matter WP:BIOG) supporting your comment on leaving out United States for articles not specifically about the city, I would therefore be interested in knowing where you see this. A fast check through relevant (i.e. involving people born in the U.S.) featured articles at WP:BIOG revealed no articles without U.S./United States – at least among the ones I checked. Please respond here rather than on my talk. Thanks. 212.10.90.224 (talk) 20:14, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I just noticed you added a comment on this on the talk of Michael Jackson. I will copy the above in a slightly modified version to that discussion. 212.10.90.224 (talk) 20:44, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 29 June 2009

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 02:02, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 6 July 2009

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 02:51, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XL (June 2009)

The June 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) 22:51, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 27 July 2009

Delivered by -- Tinu Cherian BOT - 10:49, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 3 August 2009

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 04:44, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLI (July 2009)

The July 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) 19:57, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 10 August 2009

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 04:05, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

You doing okay?

I see that your edits dropped precipitously after June 1st. Did that April-May sprint burn you out? Hope you're doing okay. Unschool 06:46, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 17 August 2009

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 02:37, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 24 August 2009

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 05:00, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 24 August 2009

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 02:36, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 24 August 2009

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 05:36, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 31 August 2009

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 17:41, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Nominations open 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 12 September!
Many thanks,  Roger Davies talk 04:24, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLII (August 2009)

The August 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) 20:16, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Military history coordinator elections: voting has started!

Voting in the Military history WikiProject coordinator election has now started. The aim is to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of sixteen candidates. Please vote here by 23:59 (UTC) on 26 September!
For the coordinators,  Roger Davies talk 22:09, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 21 September 2009

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 23:33, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 28 September 2009

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:55, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLIII (September 2009)

The September 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) 00:31, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 5 October 2009

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 05:05, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 12 October 2009

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 04:00, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Obama african american and multiracial

It seems that tarc (sp?) just wants to stifle this, without any explanation.

Can we find a time to start a new consensus about him being both african american, and mixed race at a time that I will be around to demonstrate why, as the very african american article shows, that they are not mutually exclusive. I mean this is kind of absurd because the very inclusiveness used to allow Obama to be african american, is now being used to exclude him from being of mixed race. Tarc chooses to ignore this for some reason. JohnHistory (talk) 03:19, 15 October 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory

First I must say that I agree with your decision to add bi-racial to the article. To me it is a no brainer. When reading the FAQ about the topic, it infers that Obama is refered to as bi-racial further on down in the article. Although it is mentioned that his mother was white (once), technically it does not cover the topic at all.
Now I must be a bit harsh. I do realize that Tarc is being a bit non-sensical in his reasoning, but I do have a few concerns about your motive on this topic. It is quite obvious that you are no fan of Obama, neither am I, but you seem to have a bit of a history of infighting with others. That history is what tends to turn others off to your ideas. Its not that I don't agree with what you are trying to do, and that I don't think that you are being civil, which you are, but after a while conservatives on wikipedia tend to get labeled as trouble makers or POV Pushers.
It is obvious that Tarc will not change his opinion on this matter, but I have yet to understand his reasoning so I am not going to try and convince him. What is important is that we maintain the idea that a new consensus can be formed, regardless of the previous consensus. Until this is accomplished, it will be difficult to maintain momentum for any type of change.--Jojhutton (talk) 03:45, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 19 October 2009

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 03:11, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

John Muir Trail

Here's one citation that I found in an antique shop. I will be adding other citations as well. Thanks for noticing my efforts. Jim Heaphy (talk) 22:49, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

[1]

  1. ^ Starr, Walter A. (November, 1947). "Trails". Sierra Club Bulletin. Volume 32 (Number 10). San Francisco: Sierra Club: 48–50. {{cite journal}}: |issue= has extra text (help); |volume= has extra text (help); Check date values in: |date= (help)

I added several more citations and will continue trying to improve the article. Jim Heaphy (talk) 14:57, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I saw it. It looks much better. Unfortunatly we may have to delete the section on the records, unless some more reliable sources are found.--Jojhutton (talk) 16:18, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 26 October 2009

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:18, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Deletion Policy

(In relation to Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 October 28) Perhaps the wording of Articles for deletion#How an AfD discussion is closed should be changed to place less emphasis on the admin determining an "obvious consensus"? Jwesley78 (talk) 03:52, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

That is a possibility. A suggestion on the policies talk page may help get the debate started. (And you know how well we wikipedians like to debate). I don't actually have an answer to how to solve the problem though. Making those decisions is what the admins have been tasked to do. We also know that no admin is perfect. That is why we have deletion reviews. You were well within your right to ask for a review. I too was a bit shocked to see that the article was deleted. I assumed, as I am sure that you did, that there would be no consensus. But I am sure that Julian made the most informed decision possible. It could not have been an easy decision either, given that so many editors had "Voted" to keep. Yet we sometimes forget that AFD is not based on votes, but on sound arguments. Julian must have seen something that was not apparently obvious by just looking at the votes. Actually we tend to take ourselves way too seriously sometimes on this site, and forget that there is an offline world too. I hope that all is well for you and your family this holiday season. Good night and goodluck.--Jojhutton (talk) 04:24, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

WPP California invite

If you are interested in California-related themes, you may want to check out the California Portal.
If you are interested in contributing more to California related articles you may want to join WikiProject California (signup here).


--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:58, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 2 November 2009

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 04:36, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Test your World War I knowledge with the Henry Allingham International Contest!

As a member of the Military history WikiProject or World War I task force, you may be interested in competing in the Henry Allingham International Contest! The contest aims to improve article quality and member participation within the World War I task force. It will also be a step in preparing for Operation Great War Centennial, the project's commemorative effort for the World War I centenary.

If you would like to participate, please sign up by 11 November 2009, 00:00, when the first round is scheduled to begin! You can sign up here, read up on the rules here, and discuss the contest here!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:13, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLIV (October 2009)

The October 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) 19:13, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 9 November 2009

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:26, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 16 November 2009

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 15:51, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 23 November 2009

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 12:50, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

decisive victory at Gettysburg

Just a word of warning about attempting to argue or reason with this guy--you will find the experience similar to poking a stick into a monkey's cage. :-) Good luck. Hal Jespersen (talk) 00:18, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Ill just ignore at this point.--Jojhutton (talk) 01:35, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

WP:ANI

Hi, I've replied to your posting on this page, do feel free to refactor your message to reflect the actual facts of the matter. Black Kite 07:03, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

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

Republican Party Future Trends

Could you voice your concerns besides deleting the entire section? Hard to address things w/o knowing what they are. The section has been under contention for quite some time and I was always the one who supported keeping it. I've searched for scholarly stuff that fit the bill but it's hard to find the material in the short amount of time I have. Sorry about jumping the gun... (And on a side note, I swear, you and User:Baseball Bugs drive me nuts with the fake you have messages signs :P) Soxwon (talk) 19:47, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

OK, LOL on the message signs. Just trying to keep things light. As far as the section goes, I don't care either way. Honostly, I never even read the section, but what I did see as a problem, was the complete blanking of an entire section, that has been in the article for years. I understand your concerns with the section, but my only concern is the protection of the project as a whole. I don't see it as productive for one editor to completly blank a section, without consensus, especailly one that has been in the article for several years. If there has been a discussion before on this topic, then it seems fair to assume that the consensus at that time was to keep the section. Am I wrong? Again, I don't care either way if it stays or goes, I just feel that we can't let complete sections of articles get deleted based on the whim of one editor.--Jojhutton (talk) 21:22, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
Well you see, I was usually the one who was for keeping it in those discussions... Soxwon (talk) 21:25, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
Gotcha.--Jojhutton (talk) 21:26, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
And on a note about that page, are you familiar with bots? I can't get the archive bot to work. Do I need to move the archives like I did for this one? Soxwon (talk) 21:46, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
I'm not one of those technical wikipedians, although I was able to find a nice one that archives my talk space quite nicely. That was so long ago that I couldn't begin to tell you how I found it.--Jojhutton (talk) 02:23, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 30 November 2009

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 13:32, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

hello.

Can you please refrain from removing countries from all infoboxes? The reasoning you give, I read and reviewed. That page is pertaining to naming of articles. You wouldn't have an article named, Detroit, United States or Detroit, Michigan, we know this. But if you take a look here, [11], the birth place parameter states, that the city, state and country should be included. Why on earth would you remove these? Believe it or not, some editor on here snapped at me a while ago, because I used to remove these as well. They said to me that this is considered vandalism and it's necessary to provide this information for an article about a person. I then came to my senses and realized that it makes sense to have a full birth place listed, so people around the world could get the idea of where it is. For example: Born Medford, Oregon, U.S. is more complete than just Medford, Oregon, along with London, England, UK instead of London. Tinton5 (talk) 01:08, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't agree. The Chicago Manual of Style clearly states thats US cities should be listed as (City, State) and not add the country.--Jojhutton (talk) 01:12, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Well, we use the Wikipedia Manual of Style, not the Chicago one. You are in fact wrong, you don't seem to understand my reasoning.
I was hoping that you would bring that up. Please then, since you brought it up, quote for me the wikipedia MOS that states we should use United States in place names.--Jojhutton (talk) 01:26, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Here's a question for you. There must be at least a thousand articles on here that include the country inside the infobox....Are you going to remove all of them? Why are you removing the countries from just those specific articles? (John Wayne, Brock Peters) What's wrong with Tom Cruise, Robin Williams, Steven Spielberg, Macaulay Culkin, just to name a few, they all have U.S. or United States on there. Are you going to remove the U.S. from those? Pretty much almost every article on here contains a format of city, state and country. Tinton5 (talk) 02:16, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
I remove them as I see them. It is consistant with Wikipedia MOS.--Jojhutton (talk) 02:19, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Oh, okay. Are you positive that the country is NOT needed? Tinton5 (talk) 02:38, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Now you saw WP:Place#United States, right? You were correct when you said that the policy only refers to the names of articles. But the policy doesn't end there. Please see WP:MOS#Geographical Items. It says, and I will quote Places should generally be referred to consistently using the same name as in the title of their article. We should be refering to all US cities without the country name, per policy. The line in the info boxes can be ignored in these cases. I am also aware of the massive number of articles that continue to have the country listed next to the city and state. I try to fix as I go. Its not a matter of right or wrong, its only a matter of policy on wikipedia. Policy can change from time to time though, so who knows what the future will hold.--Jojhutton (talk) 02:47, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, I totally understand that. I must've been referring to the old policy. But truthfully I still feel kinda funny removing all of the countries, you know? Well, worst case, some may contain them and some wont. Tinton5 (talk) 03:04, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
The glorious part about wikipedia, as opposed to the old ink and paper encyclopedias, is that anyone can click on a link to find out more about a topic. I understand that there may be someone out in the cyber world who may not know that Atlanta, Georgia is in the United States. So adding it makes sense when you look at it from that perspective. Yet if you just click on the links, the information is easily accesible. Nevermind the fact that adding the United States to the end of a city and state goes against every MOS policy on the face of the earth for hundreds of years.--Jojhutton (talk) 03:10, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
I had reverted your removal of the United States from the infobox on Bobby Fischer and now I realize your are doing that on all. You say "Places should generally be referred to consistently using the same name as in the title of their article" is relevant, but the title of the article is "Bobby Fischer", so how does that apply? You have me very confused! BashBrannigan (talk) 05:52, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
The word their, in this case, refers to the place names article, not the article that it is written in.--Jojhutton (talk) 12:39, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
In Fischer's case he's from Chicago. The title of the article is simply "Chicago". So why did you not remove "Illinios" as well as "United States"? BashBrannigan (talk) 18:12, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Interesting suggestion, and I had thought about it. It would be within MOS to say just Chicago, but I decided that "I" wouldn't remove it from the article, but I wouldn't be against it if some other editor did so.--Jojhutton (talk) 04:23, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

You're still misinterpreting WP:Place#United States; it is about naming an article about a place in the US; it has nothing to do with how the infobox should be formatted. Please stop removing country names from infoboxes as you see fit. Radiopathy •talk• 21:41, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Additionally, I read WP:MOS#Geographical Items, and it says nothing about omitting the country name from the infobox - once again you're misinterpreting policy. Radiopathy •talk• 21:58, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Respectfully, I have also read the sections and they say what they say. They are not ambiguous at all. If you would like to change the wording to fit more conveniently with your style of thinking, the best place to start would be the policies talk page.--Jojhutton (talk) 04:23, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Johhutton, "they say what they say" , "they are not ambiguous" and "If you would like to change the wording" are empty statements. I haven't the faintest idea of your argument. You'll need to be more specific than just sending me to the references which you say support your point of view. I wasted my time looking at them and saw nothing to support you. BashBrannigan (talk) 05:49, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
I have already linked the policy. So what do you think that it says? You must see something that I do not. This is your chance to convince me.--Jojhutton (talk) 12:36, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
You are the one who is actively doing something! You are removing USA from info-boxes. You are being challenged, so it's up to you to do the convincing. Your method of argument is ONLY to simply say "such-and-such" link is your proof. I spent a good deal of my time reading those links and could not see how they had ANYTHING to do with what you are saying. Worse, you've had two editor say they it does not. You need to be specific for your arguments to be taken seriously. BashBrannigan (talk) 18:32, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
This time I will hold your hand through the entire process.
1. First go to WP:Place#United States, and see that the first line says, and I quote The canonical form for cities in the United States is City, State. This is not ambiguous. Nor is this, a few lines down: Do not use the country name, as in "Detroit, United States" or "Kansas City, Missouri, USA". Sounds very simple doesn't it? Still not convinced are you?
2. Next, go to WP:MOS#Geographical items. The first line says, and I will quote: Places should generally be referred to consistently using the same name as in the title of their article. Then it goes on to reference a link to the previous policy on Place Names, not once, but twice. Somehow these policies must be linked in some way, wouldn't you think? I'm willing to bet that I still haven't convinced you at all. Well move on to number 3, because thats the smoking gun.
3. Now, you must be saying to yourself, WP:PLACE is only a policy about what to name an article. Well, yesterday I may have agreed with you on that, but it seems that I missed an entire section on that page. Lets go to WP:PLACE. Good, now look at the section that talks about the rest of the article. Its not far down, just scroll down to the section titled General Guidlines. Good, you found it. Now the section on the contents is very convincing. It says, and I will quote: The contents (this applies to all articles using the name in question): The same name as in the title should be used consistently throughout the article.. Now thats the same phrasing that is used at WP:MOS#Geographical terms, isn't it? Yet with one major addition. Did you see it? I knew you could do it. I guess that means the article about Bobby Fischer as well. Not much to argue against there now, is there?
Well I sure did have a blast walking you through this. I hope that we can do it again real soon.--Jojhutton (talk) 01:29, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Stumbled onto your edits, and I'd like to add my point of view. In all fairness, the first paragraph was changed (as seen here) to simplify the meaning, not change it. Applying it to anything other than the naming of articles would be interpretation of how you think it should be. If WP:MOS#Geographical items does indeed apply to this situation, does that mean you won't include China or India when referring to Guiyang, Chitradurga etc as well? Erzsébet Báthory(talk|contr.) 03:26, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
The policy, as written, only pertains to cities in the United States. BTW, did you read point number 3? That's the one that confirms it all.--Jojhutton (talk) 03:29, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
(Sticking it in here in the old thread.) I did. It is, as I read it, not a guideline on how to refer to places in the form of city/state/country, but rather a guideline on how to name the place itself, i.e. in regard to alternative/shortened names in articles. For example, München is referred to as Munich, and Göteborg as Gothenburg. Perhaps we could get a clarification on the MOS talk page or a WP:3O before pursuing these changes any further? Either way, I am off for the night. Erzsébet Báthory(talk|contr.) 04:28, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
The reference you provide is ONLY conventions for articles about places. NOT all articles. The very first line of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:PLACE reads: “This page describes conventions for determining the names of Wikipedia articles on places.” You're taking it out of context. BashBrannigan (talk) 03:59, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Apparantly you have some preconceived bias, so I will say good day to you and hope that your time on wikipedia is a happy one.--Jojhutton (talk) 04:03, 9 December 2009 (UTC
The preconceived bias is in favour of Wikipedia policy; hopefully you'll refrain from making any further controversial edits based on your interpretation of policy. Radiopathy •talk• 04:36, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
And what policy would that be exactly? (Since you brought it up). I will leave this thread open for another 24 hours to allow any editor a chance to produce evidence that refutes the (City, State) MOS. Otherwise, this discussion is going nowhere, and needs to be closed.--Jojhutton (talk) 12:51, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 7 December 2009

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 05:34, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

U.S. in infoboxes

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I notice you've been removing "U.S." from a lot of infoboxes, citing WP:PLACE. I've read through it and I can't see where it says this shouldn't be used, and I'm trying to understand the reason. Could you please point out the relevant section. Thanks Rossrs (talk) 06:48, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Did you read through WP:PLACE thouroughly, or did you just read the header and then skim through it?--Jojhutton (talk) 12:53, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
I read the whole thing. Which part are you using as a justification? I'm asking you a fair question, and if it's so clear, why did you not simply answer me politely? Rossrs (talk) 13:19, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Please read point #3 in that I gave in the above discussion titled hello..--Jojhutton (talk) 13:25, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Thank you. Although I read WP:PLACE from start to finish, I read only the headers on your talk page, and "hello" didn't jump out and grab me. #3 "The same name as in the title should be used consistently throughout the article." - to me that reads that in the article about the place, the name in the title should be used consistently throughout the article, and I have no disagreement there. It doesn't say anything about using a particular format for the place name in an article that is not about the place. In the article Michelle Pfeiffer the "title" is "Michelle Pfeiffer". In Santa Ana, California the title is "Santa Ana, California". I agree with your interpretation for the Santa Ana article, but the guideline does not address usage in an article such as "Michelle Pfeiffer". It doesn't say the country should be removed from, for example, an actor infobox. Template:Infobox actor says for birth and death fields "Use the format: town/city, state (if relevant), country". I guess it's fair to say that you are interpreting this differently to the way some other editors are interpreting it, but thank you for the explanation. Rossrs (talk) 13:59, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Don't confuse the word title to mean the title of the article that is being edited, and don't confuse an infobox template with policy, because it simply is not.--Jojhutton (talk) 19:56, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Don't confuse guidelines with policy. I don't think I'm confusing anything, but I think you are misinterpreting what is written. The same name as in the title ... why would it mean anything but the title of the article being edited when the rest of that section is clearly about the naming of the article, rather than the use of the name in other articles? Rossrs (talk) 20:44, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Rossrs on this one. WP:PLACE is a naming convention for articles about places and contains some manual of style guidance for such articles. It is not a manual of style for the use of place names within other articles, at least not as I read it. In any event, it does state that is is only a guideline. – ukexpat (talk) 20:27, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Is there a converse policy, that refutes what I am doing???--Jojhutton (talk) 20:29, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
That's very disingenuous: policies are usually very explicit; there is nothing at either of the guidelines you cite that explicitly calls for the omission of country names in infoboxes.. You can't argue that since there is no policy that refutes your interpretation of another policy, that what you're doing is acceptable. Radiopathy •talk• 20:43, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Exactly. – ukexpat (talk) 20:47, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Info boxes are content. The section that covers content says that it applies to all article using the name. WP:PLACE#United States says that it should be City, State. Then says very specifically NOT to use the phrase United States. Do you have a policy to refyte it?--Jojhutton (talk) 20:49, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Where does it say that that section is referring to content? Nothing in the "Specific topics" or the "Country-specific guidance" section and subsection says that. In fact the other country sections there appear to refer only to article names. – ukexpat (talk) 20:56, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
An actual cut and paste:
The contents (this applies to all articles using the name in question): The same name as in the title should be used consistently throughout the article. Exceptions are allowed only if there is a widely accepted historic English name for a specific historical context. In cases when a widely accepted historic English name is used, it should be followed by the modern English name in parentheses on the first occurrence of the name in applicable sections of the article in the format: "historical name (modern name)." This resembles linking; it should not be done to the detriment of style. On the other hand, it is probably better to do too often than too rarely. If more than one historic name is applicable for a given historical context, the other names should be added after the modern English name, i.e.: "historical name (English name, other historical names)".
Thanks.--Jojhutton (talk) 21:00, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) And what does it say regarding the use of country names? Radiopathy •talk• 21:10, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Again, Cut and paste:
Do not use the country name, as in "Detroit, United States" or "Kansas City, Missouri, USA"..
Thanks.--Jojhutton (talk) 21:12, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
That is from WP:PLACE#United States which is specifically (given in the second paragraph) about the naming of the article, not use within other articles. Rossrs (talk) 21:18, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
I just cut and pasted an entire section, from the same policy page, that says it applies to all article contents.--Jojhutton (talk) 21:20, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
I told you yesterday that's not the intended meaning. Also, I'd appreciate a reply to my post in regard to how the third paragraph should be interpeted. Erzsébet Báthory(talk|contr.) 21:27, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
The third paragraph of what??--Jojhutton (talk) 21:31, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Your point #3 in that discussion yesterday. See the link I provided in my post above. Erzsébet Báthory(talk|contr.) 21:36, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
All articles means ALL articles. Doesn't leave much to argue does it?--Jojhutton (talk) 21:38, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
That is not the point and you're taking it completely out of context. What they are referring to is alternative/historical names/spellings. If you look at the examples there should be no doubt whatsoever. It has zero to do with how you refer to a place in the form of name/country. Erzsébet Báthory(talk|contr.) 21:46, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Those examples are examples of exeptions to this policy, not the policy itself. The actual policy ends at the (.) after the word article. Then it goes on to list the exeptions.--Jojhutton (talk) 21:52, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

It says, eg, not to name an article about the United States city of Detroit as "Detroit, United States", it does not say anything about formatting infoboxes. 96.235.3.102 (talk) 21:30, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

In this section that you helpfully pasted: The contents (this applies to all articles using the name in question): The same name as in the title should be used consistently throughout the article. the all articles using the name in question, means "place" articles with the name in question (because it is a naming convention), it does not mean any article that just happens to use the name of the place in it. – ukexpat (talk) 22:01, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
That is not what it means at all. If it was, why say it at all?--Jojhutton (talk) 00:23, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

WP:PLACE

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Your edits where you are removing the country are incorrect. WP:PLACE applies to the naming of an article, for example Baltimore_County,_Maryland. I'm guessing all your recent edits should be reverted but I thought it best to make you aware of the reason first. SunCreator (talk) 21:32, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Read on, it applies to the content as well.--Jojhutton (talk) 21:34, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
It applies to the title when the article is about a place but not general articles. You are making the claim in topic above that if people don't know where a place is they can click the click. It seems you are not aware of how wikipedia is used. It can be produced in paper copies and also on Cd's where only the best articles are on. So on those selections clicking the link is unlikely to be possible. The limited article set goes to schools and coubntrues all over the world where a person may not know the geography. SunCreator (talk) 01:07, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
I'm back and I know what I've done, but Jojhutton, I read the above discussion and saw various editors on here state what you are doing is in fact incorrect and you are misinterpreting policy. I knew it from the get-go. I will not stoop to your level and remove another country from an infobox. Even if people undo your edits, what's the point because your going to automatically undo it to your version. I just wanted to let you know that you removing this material is simply unacceptable and for the wrong reason. Tinton5 (talk) 21:59, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for sharing your thoughts.--Jojhutton (talk) 22:02, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
On a plus note I can see you are genuinely attempting to improve wikipedia. Although in this case I think the reasoning maybe misguided. Yes, it's annoying when others don't see your work in good light, but sometimesxwe have to stop and consider is it really an improvement if others don't see it that way. end of rant hahaha. regards SunCreator (talk) 01:20, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Can we ask you to stop these changes until the issue has been resolved? Thanks. Erzsébet Báthory(talk|contr.) 02:56, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I did. I promised not to make changes to the info boxes.--Jojhutton (talk) 03:00, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

AN/I

An AN/I discussion in which you are involved has been posted here. Radiopathy •talk• 22:10, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

December 2009

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. I'm leaving this on both your talk page and Radiopathy's. Neither of you should make any more edits of the kind that have triggered the dispute until the dispute itself is resolved. —ShadowRanger (talk|stalk) 22:59, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

How is following policy an edit war? But I will not remove United states from an info box until resolved, but a prior discussion has already decided this.--Jojhutton (talk) 00:21, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
It doesn't matter if you're following policy or not, the only time you can revert a page more than three times in a day is when you're reverting blatant vandalism. — Oli OR Pyfan! 00:28, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
No I understand, but if an editor reverts 'ALL of my edits, on multiple pages, don't I get a chance to challenge that person? wiki hounding is a violation of policy on wikipedia.--Jojhutton (talk) 00:31, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
After you've reverted someone three times, try to discuss the issue with that person. If they add the content back in after you've reverted it three times, they are also guilty of 3RR but there is no point trying to revert the user again. If discussion fails, you can use Meditation or go to ANI (which you did). After reporting the issue though, don't try to revert it again. Basically what I'm saying is: yes you can challenge that person but not by reverting their edits. You can challenge them by discussing the issue with others. — Oli OR Pyfan! 00:49, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
No article was reverted three times, but I still feel that I have a duty to protect my edits, especially when they are being reverted in such large numbers. If I can't work anymore, because someone reverts ALL of my edits, then whats the point?--Jojhutton (talk) 00:54, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Gain consensus for what your doing. If you have it, others help you. Without consensus you will be fighting many that disagree. SunCreator (talk) 01:14, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Couldn't it be equally justified to gain consensus for adding the country? Especially when there is no policy thats supports his view.--Jojhutton (talk) 01:24, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Not really because if an article already has something for a time it looks as if consensus is to have it. Afterall the editor adding has the view it should be there. Others left it there and so unless there is clear policy/guideline for it's removal then it could be contentious. Wp:place is nothing like clear enough in my view. SunCreator (talk) 01:34, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
That's a good point. A lot of things are done under an informal consensus rather than as a result of a formal discussion, and if something is commonly or widely used, especially over a period of time, without attracting opposition, it indicates that an informal consensus exists. You disregarded the comment I made earlier about the Template:Infobox actor. The way the template instruction is written, and the way numerous infoboxes use the country name, and have for some time, is a good example of this. It gives evidence that within the scope of WP:ACTOR and within this infobox, it's acceptable and accepted. To make a decision to remove the country from these infoboxes is against the consensus of those editors that have commonly used this format, especially when you cite something that several editors here have said is a misinterpretation, over something that is written and demonstrated without ambiguity - also noting that neither preference is policy. I know you've stopped removing from infoboxes pending further discussion, so I'm really only addressing the point about consensus. Rossrs (talk) 08:05, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
I'm not saying that Radiopathy didn't do anything wrong, I'm saying that if an editor expressing concern about an edit, you should discuss the issue rather than revert the user. — Oli OR Pyfan! 01:04, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Yes, but Every single edit. Even ones that had nothing to do with his possible concern. --Jojhutton (talk) 01:09, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

If you'll check my edit history, you'll see that I am a regular contributor to The Beatles article, so my revert was not the result of "wikihounding". This was discussed at length, and the term "hey day" came as the result of consensus. So you and User:SunCreator are both guilty of reverting against consensus - and at a Feature Article, no less. Radiopathy •talk• 01:54, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I happen to agree with you, he does seem to be wikihounding you. — Oli OR Pyfan! 01:11, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Thank you, thats why I keep reverting him. What is even more confusing, is that he was doing what I was doing just two weeks ago, and there are other strange edits too.--Jojhutton (talk) 01:19, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Article redux

Thanks for your message. What I did was to clean up the section which most people have agreed needs done, and the reason I haven't included (and in turn removed) citations is because the majority (if not all) of the information is already cited in the article. If it requires these citations to be repeated then I will do that and re-edit the article. I see someone has already reverted it and so I will get onto it now and hope to have it reverted back again some time today. ElvisFan1981 (talk) 14:04, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable, good luck with the clean-up.--Jojhutton (talk) 16:35, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Ping

I have sent you an e-mail. --Tenmei (talk) 17:32, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Infobox

Going nowhere. Other editor wants me to keep answering the same question, after I already answered it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

You removed US from the infobox at Glenn beck with a mention of the MoS[12]. Can you provide a link to the subsection in the style guide?Cptnono (talk) 07:47, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

WP:PLACE#United States.--Jojhutton (talk) 12:31, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
WP:PLACE would not apply to an article about a person. However, you've also removed the "United States" link from the ledes of several place articles. WP:PLACE#United States seems to relate to titles of place articles; I don't see anything there that specifies that the "United States" link should not be present in the body of the article, and I think it's useful to specify the nation in which a place exists. Perhaps I'm missing something, though; could you quote the section that you are using here? Thanks. Omnedon (talk) 13:22, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
There is a section in the beginning, that says it applies to all articles using the name. The spirit and intent of the policy is what is important.--Jojhutton (talk) 13:43, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Where it says "all articles using the name in question", it is referring to the name of the place in terms of consistency -- that the name used in the article title should be used in the body, and in other articles which refer to the place, rather than using some other form of the name. It says nothing about including additional information in the article, such as the nation in which the place exists. The first line of that article reads, "This page describes conventions for determining the names of Wikipedia articles on places." Omnedon (talk) 14:03, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Thank you so much for your tecnical analysis and wikilawyering. remember that we are incouraged to remember the spirit of the guidelines.--Jojhutton (talk) 14:19, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
I'm simply trying to determine why you removed links to "United States" from several place articles, and from an article about a person. Where does the spirit of the guidelines support this? That's all I'm asking; please just show me. You have yet to give a reason that stands up; now you have resorted to abuse, by accusing me of gaming the system and thus assuming bad faith on my part. Omnedon (talk) 14:29, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
You are not the first to have concerns, and in fact I should add a FAQ to my talk page. I have done extensive homework on this. I have looked at the archives of the guideline, way back before it was even approved and found that it once said "this applies both to the article on a given geographical place and to other articles linking to it". That shows intent by the framers for this to apply to all articles. There was also a banner that was recently removed, that confirmed the same thing. It is my theory, that the title of the guideline is misleading, and that is why some of that language slowly evolved into what it is today, (Without Consensus of Course).--Jojhutton (talk) 14:45, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
But what applies to these articles? Why remove a link to "United States" from an article about a place in the United States? It's descriptive. Omnedon (talk) 14:51, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Why do you accuse someone of game playing and wikilawyering? This is the forth area discussing the same point - and in the others 1. User talk:Jojhutton/Archive 2#hello, 2. User talk:Jojhutton/Archive 2#U.S. in infoboxes and 3. Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names)/Archives/2009/December#Is there a convention for use of country when refering to US cities, several editors have asked the same question as User:Omnedon and have given a similar response to your reply. At some point don't you begin to wonder why so many people are disagreeing with you? I know you believe it's because you're right and everyone else is wrong, but you've answered User:Omnedon as though none of the previous discussion ever happened. For all of your assertions, so far nobody has agreed with you. Rossrs (talk) 14:38, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
If everyone disagrees, then how come no one has offered a solution or a counter guideline?--Jojhutton (talk) 14:47, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
An article about a place should describe that place. Surely the nation in which it exists is relevant content. Omnedon (talk) 14:51, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
How can they? For them to offer a 'solution' they would first have to agree with your interpretation, but they don't. Furthermore, they can't offer a counter guideline when their belief is that the you are interpreting the guideline incorrectly. What, in the guideline, can they counter? They can only counter your interpretation, and they've done that. Again, they would have to agree with your interpretation in order to make a change. To put it simply, you are seeing a problem that these editors don't see, and they can't fix a problem that they don't see. Rossrs (talk) 15:00, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Thats the problem, everyone keeps telling me, but has yet to show me. What then, is the guideline that requires the country in the infobox?--Jojhutton (talk) 15:04, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
You know there isn't one, and you know very well I've never said the country is "required". I've said, based on common usage, that it is acceptable, and that is an entirely different thing. Not "required". Not mandatory. Don't now skew it to say that you need to see the guideline that "requires" it. There isn't one. Likewise there is none that says it shouldn't be used, or that when it is used, it should be removed. You are the one taking issue with a common and long practised custom, and if you want it to stop, you need to raise the subject and have it discussed, not just make a series of edits that cause dispute. Common practice is as good as a consensus for acceptability, regardless of what a guideline may or may not say. The only way you've been able to support removal of this usage, is to cite a guideline that everyone who has commented has said you are misinterpreting. You can't keep removing it from the infobox and expect everyone to welcome it, as it evidenced by the reaction you've received over the last few days. Now, it's late in my part of the world, and I'm going to get some sleep. Rossrs (talk) 15:25, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Of course there isn't one, just like, (according to some editors interpretation of WP:PLACE), there isn't one that says it is not required. Then based on common usage your phrase, it is just as acceptable to leave it out. Now how common and long practised is this "Custom"? again, your words. Is it six months? A year? A few years? How about 200+ years? Is there evidence that this "custom" is acceptable practice anywhere in encyclopedic writting? If the guideline is as everyone says it is, then the consensus should be reached on each article's talk page. Unless of course, someone wants to establish a binding guideline that either requires it, or not. The point is that there should be standard across wikipedia that each infobox should follow, based on either policy or a new guideline, if you all so wish. We cannot continue to have half of the infoboxes with the (City, State, Country) and the other half with (City, State). Its not encyclopedic and looks awful. If someone wants to propose a guideline, I will help contribute, but until then the articles need to be in line with standard MOS, even if no wikipedia guideline acknowledges "Common Practice" in the The Chicago Manual of Style, AP Stylebook, A Manual for Writers of Research Papers, Theses, and Dissertations, The Elements of Style, The MLA Handbook for Writers of Research Papers, The MLA Style Manual, The New York Times Manual of Style and Usage, Hart's Rules, and APA style--Jojhutton (talk) 15:54, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Jojhutton, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Basically, it describes things so that people can find out about them. An article on a notable place should be descriptive of that place. I do not need an explicit policy to tell me that the place's parent nation is worthy of mention in the article. You do need a policy in order to say that this is unacceptable; but I don't believe any such policy exists. Omnedon (talk) 15:39, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
First of all, I have never claimed that the United States should not ever be used in an infobox. It just shouldn't be used as (City, State, Country). If you want it added somewhere, fine knock yourself out, just follow the style guidelines.--Jojhutton (talk) 15:54, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Including the nation in the lede, as well as in the infobox, is perfectly acceptable and is common practice. Omnedon (talk) 16:05, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Common practice where? According to what source? That can be construed as original research.--Jojhutton (talk) 16:07, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
It is common practice on thousands upon thousands of United States place articles. The place's nation is relevant and should be specified. Tell me specifically why not to include this -- otherwise, please drop it, as your accusations and smoke-and-mirrors are becoming very tiresome. There is no substance to your arguments thus far. Omnedon (talk) 16:15, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Unless there is a reliable source that says that it should be written as (City, state, Country), then I will rely on the sources that I have that says it should be stated as (City, State).--Jojhutton (talk) 16:18, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
What sources? Specify them. I have given my reasons; give yours. Omnedon (talk) 16:23, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
How about each one of these style guides: The Chicago Manual of Style, AP Stylebook, A Manual for Writers of Research Papers, Theses, and Dissertations, The Elements of Style, The MLA Handbook for Writers of Research Papers, The MLA Style Manual, The New York Times Manual of Style and Usage, Hart's Rules, and APA style--Jojhutton (talk) 16:26, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
No, relevant sources, please. What about Wikipedia policies? You once cited WP:PLACES. That was invalid in this application. What Wikipedia policies or guidelines support your actions? Omnedon (talk) 16:47, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Including "United States"

Please read the FAQ
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Here, in plain text without links, is an example of the first sentence of one of the articles which you edited:

"Decatur Township is the smallest in geographic size and in population of the nine townships in Marion County, Indiana, United States."

What did you do? You removed "United States". This has nothing to do with any of the "sources" you have cited. You keep talking about "City, State" versus "City, State, Nation" -- but that has no bearing on what you did here. In an article about a township (or a city, or a county), it is useful and descriptive to mention the nation, since there are articles about places throughout the world, not just the United States. Omnedon (talk) 17:16, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Interesting point about the townships, and perhaps the answer is not immediate, You go right ahead and mention the nation in as many articles that you can edit. I never said that an article couldn't say the country name. That would be absurd, and there is no policy or guideline that backs that up. Unless there is an MOS that states (city, state, country), then perhaps you should leave it alone. Place it whereever you see fit, per the proper MOS.--Jojhutton (talk) 17:59, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
In your newly-created FAQ, you claim that WP:PLACE "covers this very nicely". However, I point out once more that WP:PLACE is about article titles, not about whether or not "United States" should should be mentioned and linked within an article. Omnedon (talk) 21:13, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I did read the FAQ. I asked a question, as the FAQ makes no sense. You "closed the discussion". That doesn't end the issue. Omnedon (talk) 21:24, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Elvis Presley

User:ElvisFan1981 is clearly whitewashing the Elvis Presley article, as this user primarily removes content that includes critical voices about the singer. Wikipedia is not a fan site. Some weeks ago, another user has written that there is “to much unnecessary quotes of praise, this is an encyclopedia page not a tribute...” See [13]. And there can be no doubt that this user was right, if you now look at the Legacy section whitewashed by ElvisFan. Let us compare the old and new version. See [14]

What we now read in the new version is that Elvis was “unique and irreplaceable”, that he “paved the way for many artists, black or white, that followed in his footsteps,” that his music “had a huge effect on the popular culture” and “helped to break down racial barriers”, that his films “are replayed on television all over the world”, that “Elvis is the greatest cultural force in the twentieth century”, that his “Las Vegas engagements are amongst the most famous and well known of any performer”, that the “worldwide satellite concert, Aloha From Hawaii, is still the biggest single concert any solo entertainer has given to date”, that Graceland “has become one of the most visited tourist attractions in the USA,” that “Presley has been inducted into four music 'Halls of Fame'”, that some years ago one or two of his songs again “topped the charts” in several countries, that Presley was listed as one of “the top-earning deceased celebrity, grossing US$45 million for the Presley estate”, that the singer “Presley enjoyed the kind of worldwide fame that had never been seen before,” that his “name, image and voice are instantly recognisable on every continent and within most cultures,” that “in music polls worldwide, he is constantly recognised as one of the most important musical artists of all time” etc. etc.

This sounds as if it was written for a fan site, as there are no critical voices to be heard, and this is no longer a balanced, encyclopedic view of the singer. Interestingly, more critical, well sourced material written by reputable authors that was part of the old version of the said section has all been removed by ElvisFan1981, for instance, that

“Just before his death, Elvis had been forgotten by society”, that when Presley died, "it was as if all perspective on his musical career was somehow lost," that “latter-day song choices had been seen as poor,” that “many who disliked Presley had long been dismissive because he did not write his own songs,” that “tabloids had ridiculed his obesity and his kitschy, jump-suited performances”, that his “sixties' film career was mocked”, that die-hard fans “even denied that he looked ‘fat’ before he died”, that it “is an error of enthusiasm to freight Elvis Presley with too heavy a historical load” because, according to an opinion poll of high school students in 1957, Pat Boone was nearly the "two-to-one favorite over Elvis Presley among boys and preferred almost three-to-one by girls...", that some even saw him “as a white man who 'stole black music'”.

Removing such critical information is what I would call fan bias. The same kind of whitewash is currently happening concerning other sections of Elvis-related articles. See [15], [16], [17], etc. Let us now analyse some edits by ElvisFan1981 in order to demonstrate his tactics that even distort direct quotes (see [18]). Previous version:

Although Presley was praised by directors, like Michael Curtiz, as polite and hardworking (and as having an exceptional memory), "he was definitely not the most talented actor around."[1]

Version by ElvisFan:

Although Presley was praised by directors, like Michael Curtiz, as polite and hardworking (and as having an exceptional memory), he was not always considered the most talented of actors[2]

Previous version:

The scripts of his movies "were all the same, the songs progressively worse."[3]

Version by ElvisFan:

The scripts of his movies were all very similar with songs that were rarely taken seriously.[4]

Previous version:

Julie Parrish, who appeared in Paradise, Hawaiian Style, says that Presley hated many of the songs chosen for his films; he "couldn't stop laughing while he was recording" one of them.[5]

Version by ElvisFan:

Julie Parrish, who appeared in Paradise, Hawaiian Style, says that Presley hated many of the songs chosen for his films.[6]

Previous version:

Sight and Sound wrote that in his movies "Elvis Presley, aggressively bisexual in appeal, knowingly erotic, [was] acting like a crucified houri and singing with a kind of machine-made surrealism."[7]

ElvisFan totally removed this quote from a reputable film journal presumably because of its critical remarks concerning Presley’s acting.

Further examples could be added. Query: what should be done with the edits of this user? Onefortyone (talk) 19:16, 13 December 2009 (UTC)


I'm sorry to impose upon your page here, jojhutton, but I feel that the above editor is being very unfair towards me and my edits. If you, or anyone else on wikipedia, would like to look into my reply on the relevant talk page (Elvis Presley) and have a look at many of my previous edits on the article, it will be very clear that I am not "whitewashing" the article or attempting to remove negative information unnecessarily. ElvisFan1981 (talk) 22:26, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
I can try and help you guys out, but my opinion has no more weight than any one elses, so I don't know if I can be all that helpful, but lets take a look.--Jojhutton (talk) 22:36, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Thank you jojhutton, your input would be very much appreciated. Can I just add the following that I was writing when you left your message above;
The edits I have made over the last four months since the above editor last had any input on the article, are for the overall improvement of the article itself. The way Onefortyone makes it sound is that I have completely removed all the negativity within the article which is absolute nonsense. Most of the edits are to remove direct quotes from books and paraphrase them in original wording, something Wikipedia believes in. You and I discussed the Legacy section a few days ago and you apparently had no problem with the recent changes. A Legacy should be a postive thing, not a negative thing. The majority of the article is bloated and is in desperate need of being cut down, and it deals with many, many, many aspects of Presley's negative life; drugs, lack of sex drive, terrible movies, terrible songs, lack of a decent acting career, death from drug use etc...
Onefortyone likes to continually go on and on about being neutral, yet very few of their own edits are neutral in any way, instead usually being very over the top in their negativity. ElvisFan1981 (talk) 22:26, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
"A Legacy should be a positive thing, not a negative thing." Really? Legacy is something handed down from the past by tradition, and a celebrity’s heritage, as you may also call it, is sometimes good and sometimes bad. “As for the Legacy section”, ElvisFan says on the Elvis talk page, “I cannot and will not accept that it should ever mention anything negative about Presley.” So much for this user’s recent edits that removed large blocks of more critical information, or, as ElvisFan claims, with an innocent air, on the Elvis talk page, the “removal of some content, both NEGATIVE AND POSITIVE.” Onefortyone (talk) 01:55, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Why can't you keep this to the talk page on Elvis Presley now? Each one of these people is now aware of it and are quite capable of reading it there in the same way that you or I are. However, seeing as you've put your own spin in this talkpage, then I will do the same for balance and fairness;

I have removed both negative and positive content, there are huge chunks of positive praise that have now been removed from the Legacy section that was there before my recent edits. There were some very positive praises that I've removed from the Acting Section also today, and from a few of the other sections that I've worked on. To say that I have only removed negative content would a downright lie, and you are very aware of that yourself. Just because I have written that "I cannot and will not accept....", does not mean that I will revert any decision to change it back if that is what any mediator decides is best. Again, you are attempting to make something sound worse that it is. And how so convenient that you only seem to copy/paste the content that is critical and in favour of your argument and fail to mention all the positive praise that has been removed/altered from the article in the last four months.

If you are interested in Wikipedia being as good a source as it can be in general and are not primarily focused on Elvis Presley, why don't you head over to the Michael Jackson article and the Freddie Mercury article and every other article that has nothing but positive remarks about their subject in the Legacy sections and tell them exactly what you've just written above about what a Legacy should be? I'm sure you will be able to find many negative things about both artists to fill into their legacy sections. Could it be that you don't actually care at all about any of that and that this is some kind of personal vendetta against only myself because of our previous disagreement four months ago? It seems very strange to me that since then you haven't had any input into any Wikipedia article, and that your very first input on your return is to alter and then personally attack me for some work that I have done to improve an article. ElvisFan1981 (talk) 05:19, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

New section

The one up above is closed now. I would rethink removing the United States from infoboxes the way you have been. The naming conventions cover the names of articles. I disagree with your reading of it to apply to article content. It doesn't matter how much you think it is so, it is obvious that others disagree with you. I noticed that Template:Infobox person has "city, administrative region, sovereign state" as the description for birth place and the example has city, state. I'm not sure if that is concrete enough for a large scale adjustment. Instead of starting fights on Wikipeida this might be a good time to bring it up at the Village Pump. Alternatively, you could bring it up at the infobox project or even individual infobox talk pages but the Village pump would get some good attention and start a conversation that might be able to finally put this to rest in a manner that is indisputable. I could care less one way or the other and don't think this is something to bicker over. Hopefully getting the community reinvolved will set a better tone than seen on this talk page.Cptnono (talk) 21:32, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

To be fair to all involved, I don't think that any fights have started. I've gotten mostly civil responses, and wouldn't infer any ill will toward me or my point of view. I don't think that the infobox project is the best place to have the guideline discussion, since infoboxes do not control the guidelines, rather the other way around. If someone wants to offer a change to the guideline, then let them come forward with proposal.--Jojhutton (talk) 02:27, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
No ill will from me at least. I don't see any guideline or policy in place that clearly says that it is not supposed to be in the infobox. There also doesn't appear to be consensus project wide on the way you are reading the naming conventions (from my quick reading up on it and from the looks of some messages here).Cptnono (talk) 02:40, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps a new guideline is in order. At least something to help with the confusion.--Jojhutton (talk) 02:44, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Made a mention at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Countries in infoboxes (biographies). Hope I did not misstate what you are saying. Cptnono (talk) 03:09, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 14 December 2009

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 15:57, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Redundant information?

Closing a thread added by a stalker whose only edits in the past week seem to be related to undoing my edits
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

You edited Speedway, Indiana and removed "United States" from the lead sentence, saying it was redundant. Infoboxes often present information that is also presented in the body of the article. By your logic, why did you not also remove the county and state from the lead sentence? These are also is specified in the infobox. However, for the lead sentence to be descriptive, the information needs to be there as well as in the infobox. The country is as relevant as the county and state.

In editing San Ysidro McDonald's massacre, you removed "United States" from both the infobox and the lead sentence, saying it was "unneeded info". This is patently absurd, as the discussion at WP:Village pump (policy)#Countries in infoboxes (biographies) shows -- everyone there disagreed with you. The country needs to be mentioned, as it is not reasonable in an international encyclopedia to assume "United States".

Please stop removing relevant information from articles. Editor after editor has said that you are wrong to do so, at the village pump and on your own talk page, as well as in edit summaries. You have yet to cite a single policy or guideline that actually supports your actions. You should really stop. Omnedon (talk) 04:44, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Have you actually read Wikipedia:STALK#Wikihounding? I am not in any way stalking you. I am, however, asking you to stop removing relevant content from articles in the face of clear disagreement from many other editors. It's inappropriate for you simply to dismiss questions from others, "close" discussions without response, baselessly accuse editors of stalking, wikilawyering, bad faith, et cetera, and continue with your actions. Perseverance can be an admirable trait, but here it has been taken it to an unreasonable extreme; so far, no one supports what you are doing, and many oppose it, yet you continue to make these edits even after it has been made clear that you stand alone on this. We don't need to have a conflict here, if you would just discuss this instead of digging in. Omnedon (talk) 12:47, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

U.S. yet again

Per this edit, to say that Marilyn Monroe was born and died in the U.S. is not WP:OR. You seem to be changing your edit summaries if not your edits. The birth and death place are also sourced in the article, so it's not necessary to add another source to the infobox. Please stop removing the U.S. from infoboxes. You've had more than an opportunity to have your say, and several editors, myself included have read what you have had to say, and have disagreed. You do not own this aspect of Wikipedia's style, the style in which "U.S" is used in the infobox is acceptable whether you like it or not, and you've yet to show anything to support the removal of this style other than your own opinion, and your questionable interpretation of a guideline that refers only to the naming of the article. You are flogging a dead horse, and your editing has passed the point of being tendentious. Placing an FAR at the top of your talk page, doesn't make you right or make you anything more than a single editor with an opinion (who seems to be mostly out of step with every other editor who has commented). And yes, I'm sure you'll "close" this within minutes and I really don't care. Rossrs (talk) 15:22, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Stalking?

In response to your posting on my talk page, I have to ask: why do you believe I'm a stalker? Of your many edits, I've undone a total of one, based on a public discussion at the Village Pump in which many editors are involved (and to which I've contributed only a single comment). Please try not to be accusatory toward other editors, and see WP:Stalking#Wikihounding for Wikipedia's definition.

Also, despite the section title, please note that the discussion at the Village Pump addresses the appropriateness of removing "United States" in geographic references in general (as evidently does your own FAQ). It's a relatively minor matter certainly, but given that it's also a contentious one that's drawn quite a few people's attention, and that it's currently under active debate, I'd recommend that you not try to force it over/against other editors' concerns, per the general policy of consensus. Thanks Huwmanbeing ☀★ 17:08, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I apologize if I came off a bit harsh. I have had too many of my edits reverted in mass lately, but I want to say for the record that it was probably not stalking. As to the content of the discussion at the village pump. I saw, and still do not see, a reference to a guideline that refutes my position. If someone wants to form a consensus or change the guideline as it reads now, then let them offer a suggestion at the appropriate talk page. The Village Pump talk page is designed to offer suggestions to change policy and guidelines not to create a forum for forming consensus on non-excistant guidelines. Yes the thread did turn toward the article as a whole, but what you may not be aware of is that in other discussions, some editors have supported the belief that the body should follow the (City, state) guidleine.--Jojhutton (talk) 22:03, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
I can understand being concerned about reverts. However: if various people are indeed reverting many of your edits, that should be a warning sign that what you're doing likely lacks consensus and should not be pursued unilaterally. I see that you are carrying on with this, altering a number of geographic articles today with reference to the Place policy for rationale. As already discussed, this policy doesn't explicitly support your action.
From an examination of recent discussions, edits, etc., it clear there's not agreement on this issue, so I again recommend refraining from continuing, at least while there's contention and debate. (Or if you do choose to continue, please don't be surprised if others continue to revert.) Huwmanbeing ☀★ 21:09, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
  1. ^ Verswijver, p. 129.
  2. ^ Verswijver, p. 129.
  3. ^ Kirchberg and Hendricks, p. 67.
  4. ^ Kirchberg and Hendricks, p. 67.
  5. ^ Lisanti 2000, pp. 19, 136.
  6. ^ Lisanti 2000, pp. 19, 136.
  7. ^ Sight and Sound, The British Film Institute, British Institute of Adult Education (1992), p. 30.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jojhutton/Archive_2&oldid=1166514532"