User talk:JHunterJ/Archive 22: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 15:56, 17 November 2010

Please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~). Place comments that start a new topic at the bottom of the page. The easiest way to do this is by clicking the [new section] on the navigation bar above.

Please respect

Talk page guidelines & Wikiquette

I will reply here unless you ask me to reply somewhere else.

Rice (disambiguation)

When you reverted my edits on Rice (disambiguation), in addition to changing which entries were included you also reverted changes that I had made to descriptions, which surprised me. I would guess this was unintentional, but thought I should mention it. Anything I should know?

Please also note comments added on Talk:Rice (disambiguation). ENeville (talk) 17:21, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I used a fuller edit summary this time around.[1] -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:20, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see. I'm honestly still a little surprised by the nature of transpiration in this case. Perhaps that reflects an error in expectations I developed. Please note that your last reversion also reverted an updated link to ricing (cooking), which I saw fit to move. ENeville (talk) 00:54, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Campion

The problems, as I see them, with moving the article back to Henry Campion are 1) when the article is written about the Lymington MP then the East Grinstead will have to be moved again to make the dab page, and 2) until then it is likely that people will link incorrectly to the East Grinstead MP. DuncanHill (talk) 18:41, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll add that when the page was moved to make a dab page I was able to correct several links that were about the Lymington MP to valid redlinks instead. I'll no longer be as able easily to find such incorrect links with the page moved back. DuncanHill (talk) 18:50, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The solution is first to create the article, and then to disambiguate them. They can be disambiguated with a hatnote as has been done, or if there is consensus that the existing article is no longer the primary topic, then a move can be made and the disambiguation page moved to the base name. -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:53, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, a dab page with a valid redlink seems perfectly acceptable to me. As it is, you have returned it to a position that attracted incorrect links, and we now have no ready way to detect further incorrect links. DuncanHill (talk) 18:57, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You can also then propose your move at Talk:Henry Campion and see if there is consensus for the move. -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:02, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, so long as you know that you are making life harder for editors correcting misdirected links, then carry on! DuncanHill (talk) 19:07, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Every ambiguous title that has a primary topic makes life harder for editors, but they make life easier for readers, so we continue to use primary topics even with ambiguous titles. -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:08, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Would you care to explain how misdirected links make life easier for readers? Because that is what Henry Campion had several of pointing to it before it was made a dab page and I fixed them. DuncanHill (talk) 19:14, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No. Primary topics make life easier for readers. Misdirected links do not, and should be fixed. Fixed misdirected links are a burden on editors but also make life easier for readers. -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:15, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see how your change makes life any easier for readers! And I certainly do not understand why you think it a good idea to make it hard to fix misdirected links. DuncanHill (talk) 19:20, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Friedman disambig?

Surely if two or more people have the same name a disambig is the right way to deal with it - not to use the shortest article as the main one? Thruxton (talk) 21:59, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not if there's a primary topic (and the original article was the target of some incoming links at the base name). The lengths of the articles are not particularly relevant -- recent topics tend to get longer articles because it's easier to find sources or because the editors may be directly involved with the topics. If the original article does need to be moved, it should be moved to a title with a disambiguator, not to the middle initial without a period. Since you've created the new article Mark Friedman (FPSI), you should probably make sure there's consensus for the change to no primary topic by proposing a move of Mark Friedman to Mark Friedman (physiologist) and the base name become a dab. Note too that it takes just as long (one extra click) to reach your new article in either arrangement (a click through the dab page or a click through the hatnote on the original article). -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:20, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Motta

Do you fancy correcting the incoming links to [[2]]? I would have a go using dabsolver, but that is impossible now that you have moved a small parish in Switzerland to the page which was a dab page. DuncanHill (talk) 12:29, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I revert a recent, undiscussed move[3]. You appear to have no other history with that page. Please do not start stalking my edits. WP:STALK. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:32, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the incoming links are not to the Swiss parish, so a dab page would seem to be a more appropriate at the title. I do not require a previous history with a page to ask that an editor fixes a disruptive edit he has made. DuncanHill (talk) 12:35, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That can still be stalking. Feel free to continue to improve the project through a WP:RM or an otherwise helpful series of moves. My fixing a malplaced disambiguation page is not disruptive. Having a go with dabsolver now is no different than before the disambiguation page was created. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:41, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The creation of the dab page made it possible to use dabsolver, and other tools to spot dablinks. You have chosen to make it impossible. How was it malplaced? There is no primary topic, as the incoming links make clear. You are making unhelpful pagemoves which do nothing for either readers or editors. Your pagemoves make it harder to send readers to the right article, because they make it harder for editors to correct incorrect links. I am beginning to see a pattern of disruptive behaviour from you. I have disambiguated thousands of links - mainly because, as a reader, I find incorrect links obnoxious. DuncanHill (talk) 12:46, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MALPLACED explains the concept. It was linked above. [4]. If you feel that ambiguous titles should not have primary topics because that makes it harder for editors to correct incorrect links, please bring it up at WT:D. But stop harassing this page, or initiate a formal complaint process. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:50, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is no clear primary target for Motta, as a moment's perusal of the incoming links and their articles would shew, WP:DAB suggests strongly that Motta should be a dab page. I am sorry that your reaction to being asked to explain or reconsider your actions is to claim harrassment. I shall continue to monitor your edits in this area, and if your disruption continues I shall consider initiating an RfCU on it. DuncanHill (talk) 13:03, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't consider being asked to explain harassment, which is why I explained when asked. I do consider stalking (what you call "monitoring") and repeated requests to explain the same thing rather than using the solutions given in the explanations harassment. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:11, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I started by explaining why a page move you had made was unhelpful - this for a page that, when it had been made into a dabpage I was able to identify and fix some incorrect links (something that is now much harder for me to do, because of your pagemove). I then saw another editor question another move you had made, so I glanced at your contributions. I saw one very quickly that was also problematical, and asked if you fancied fixing some of the problems it created, which you said you would not do. You have repeatedly not explained why you made the Motta move, when it is clear that the Swiss parish is not a primary topic in disambiguation terms. When I see an editor making problematic edits in one of my primary areas of editing, I do have a look at their other edits to see if there is a pattern or if it is a momentary aberration. This is not stalking. Asking you to explain again when the explanations you have given do not make sense is not harrassment. DuncanHill (talk) 13:18, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You apparently have a problem with:

WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Discuss there.
WP:MALPLACED. Discuss there.
The arrangement of Motta that existed until the change in October. WP:RM there. When done, if the disambiguation page is malplaced, another editor will fix it.
WP:AGF. No need for discussion -- you just need to start.
WP:STALK. Stop monitoring my edits that support of the above guidelines for the purpose of harassing me about those guidelines here. Discuss whichever issues you have at the appropriate guidelines' or articles' Talk pages instead.

Simple. Move along. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:46, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How does having the dab page at Motta (disambiguation) instead of at Motta comply with the guidelines? It doesn't, and you have repeatedly refused to explain how you think it does. DuncanHill (talk) 14:49, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I see you have started the discussion at Talk:Motta. Very good. Move along. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:51, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jinn and Jinni

Hello, my edit comment wasn't very clear so just trying to clarify. I understand you are saying Jinn (supernatural creatures) is the primary topic for the article titles "Jinni", right? However, several major search engines (Bing, google, yahoo!) return a first hit that is not Jinn (supernatural creatures), but a movie-related website. So under the circumstances I think a disambiguation page is more reasonable, wouldn't you agree? pgr94 (talk) 13:19, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Internet searches are only part of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, and a web search may turn up a web site more than actual Wikipedia readership would be using it. Google Book and Google News searches, for example, indicate that the current arrangement is correct, and Google Scholar has no hits for jinni.com. But in any event, you would probably want Jinni (disambiguation) moved to Jinni then, and should propose that move via WP:RM. Right? -- JHunterJ (talk) 22:28, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Na

His behaviour was destructive towards me personally and towards the project, regardless the article only mentions "NA" because he put it there and his "source" doesn't validate the abbreviation. Do you still think it belongs in the DAB? æron phone home 08:51, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article mentions "NA" because User:Lmxspice added an explanation in March 2007. I was involved in restoring the mention after a brief absence, spelling out what the initials stand for, and providing a source. This source refers to, "the achievement of National Academician, NA." If the concern is the quality of the source (the entity's own webpage; though AeronPeryton hasn't said this is an issue), I would readily supplement it with a printed source like this one on request. I'm sorry if I spoke or acted intemperately, but I'm seeing a pot/kettle issue on that score. Wareh (talk) 15:09, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Qaradağlı

How can a disambiguation page work for users if it provides no basis for disambiguation? Your removal of the rayons for the various named places in Azerbaijan on the Qaradağlı disambiguation removed the basis for making a choice. Am I missing something? --Bejnar (talk) 20:09, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The rayons are named in the entries themselves, aren't they? That's middle word in "Qaradağlı, Goranboy, Azerbaijan" as opposed to "Qaradağlı, Jabrayil, Azerbaijan"? -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:42, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. It's in the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Green Berets Vandal and Abuse of Protection on Page section. Enter CBW, waits for audience applause, not a sausage. 06:53, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The basics

Are you also unwilling to talk to me? I can't take you seriously as an Admin if you don't understand the importance of references and how they relate to DAB pages. Did you even read the reference Wareh provided? There is no mention at all about "NA" standing for National Aca-whatevers. I've checked it personally three seperate times, if it was a valid reference I would have no problem whatsoever with imcluding that article in the DAB. But the number one problem DABs have is "me too!" links that are trivial at best and completely wrong most of the time. Those pages are meant to facilitate navigation within Wikipedia for readers, when they link somewhere that has an unsourced statement Wikipedia has basically lied to the reader about what a term means.

As long as I know that the information is wrong, I will continue to support a more correct DAB page.

In addition, the changes you keep making to the structure go against a lot of style guidelines set by the Disambiguation Project... Are you a member? Do you know anything about the guidelines there? æron phone home 06:49, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good news, you can remain quiet. Another editor has provided a decent reference to the term and the entry is back on the Na disambiguation page. The question to you and Wareh is (not that I'm expecting a good answer); Why wasn't this done in the first place? æron phone home 09:10, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good news, I need neither for you to take me seriously as an Admin, nor your permission to remain quiet. NA was mentioned on the target article, so it can merit an entry on the dab page. If it needed a reference, that all gets handled on the article, either with a citation request (and the dab entry remains) or with a removal of the mention (and the dab entry goes). References are not related to dab pages. I don't know why you or Wareh or the new editor didn't provide the reference on the article in the first place -- I suspect you are also all volunteers on this project and had various priorities and available knowledge. Now that the reference is there, though, I believe you now owe Wareh an apology for implying he basically lied to the reader. Finally, yes, I'm a member of the disambiguation project, and my edits go well in hand with the guidelines there. If you've got a specific question (and can ask it while assuming good faith), I'll answer it. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:34, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've figured out AeronPeryton's problem with the correct link I supplied in the footnote: the HTML is poorly formatted and may not display correctly in a browser (with a menu covering some of the text). Even if the better-formatted alternative had not been discovered by ShelfSkewed, this would have been a legitimate source for the Academy's statement of "the achievement of National Academician, NA." Poorly-formatted HTML is not a reason to reject a source; many citations have far higher barriers to access than this one. This could have been solved with an appropriately modest, "Am I crazy, because you seem to believe that information is on that webpage, but I can't find it!" I'm pretty sure there's something to my theory here, but I have to guess, because it never occurred to A.P. to treat me like a responsible editor worth having a discussion with or being given a chance to demonstrate the value of my contributions.

JHunterJ, I have to thank you for supporting my work when it transparently wanted nothing more than to add a MOSDAB-qualified entry. Whether you remember it or not, we had (almost a year ago) some disagreement before because of your strict adherence to MOSDAB where I thought more entries were permissible and useful. So I'm impressed that, rather than taking AP's complaint as somehow confirming an earlier suspicion about me, you stuck to the merits here. Perhaps you can add this experience to your ongoing Disambiguation Project work, when there are future occasions to consider the unproductive conflicts between differently motivated editors in this domain. Apologies in advance if this personal communication constitutes, or leads to, too much unwanted discussion here.

P.S. As to why no footnote originally, we'd have to ask Lmxspice why (s)he omitted one three years ago (see above): probably not worth an inquisition. Wareh (talk) 14:31, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd pretend that it's because I'm a saint when it comes to WP:AGF, but it's probably closer to reality that while I recognized your handle, I didn't recall anything specific about our earlier discussion. I have my suspicions about dab entries, but (I like to think) very few suspicions about editors. FWIW, I prefer "adherence" to "strict adherence". "strict" makes it sound like it's a bad thing. :-) -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:47, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You ought to familiarise yourself

Relocated to Talk:Na

You're welcome to remove the points I made from your own talk page but it does not belong in an article's talk. It was directed at you, at your edits. If you don't want to hear it, whatever. I will continue to uphold policy the best I can on the articles I watch. Now you know why. æron phone home 23:48, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion about the correct or incorrect applications of the guidelines do indeed belong in the appropriate article's talk. 17 kilobytes of such do not belong on User talk pages. I hope you continue to increase your understanding of the policies. Having other editors responds to your questions can only help that. -- JHunterJ (talk) 23:53, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop blind reverting everything. I backed up every change I made with facts and policy and links and everything. Just like you do. And unless you can disprove the points I made by doing the same thing then the changes I made will stand. If you're more concerned with being right than making Wikipedia better then you need to find a different hobby. æron phone home 23:56, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And I agree, someone other than you needs to evaluate this. Your "comments" are completely weasel. You suggest that a change needs to be made when it's clearly not what the style guidelines say... to those of us that read them. This is clearly a case of sour grapes, I didn't mean cause this with that carpet bomb of information but now you know why I avoid doing that and just silently hope that the offending editor will take a peak at the guidelines, realize why they are being countered, and quietly take the lumps. The difference between you and me is I have no problem telling you where I made mistakes, and you didn't seem to have any problem agreeing with me then. My intent is to keep articles and pages on Wikipedia as best I can to the policies and guidelines forged from consensus. If I'm wrong then all one has to do is show me why I'm wrong, like I did with you. If I really am wrong, it's that easy. But the most disturbing thing about this is that you're suppose to be someone the community looks up to. æron phone home 00:15, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop removing the request for cleanup. I have tried to explain each application of the guidelines. Even with WP:INTDABLINK, which is crystal clear, the best you can muster is "deferring to my judgment", as if there were another interpretation possible. Sentence fragments, BTW, don't hinge on commas, but on subject & verb, such as "Na is a Japanese kana". You have crossed the lines of civility with your comments. Continue the discussion about Na on Talk:Na, if you have anything left to say. -- JHunterJ (talk)

Then communication has broken down on your end. If you continue to revert improvements to any DAB page without reason I will respond as appropriate. æron phone home 09:04, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You do not understand the reasons, fine. That doesn't mean only one side of the communication is broken. And since you have varied between passive-aggressive and aggressive-aggressive, I have little incentive to pursue. "Respond as appropriate" in this case means using Talk:Na. Do not harass this page any further. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:18, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I understood your reasons just fine once you showed me their origin. But you are just plain mistaken on many things, too many of them black and white. And I was alternating between confusion and cynicism. You have Wikipedia editors like yourself to thank for my jekyll/hyde personality. æron phone home 12:31, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Understand that regardless of the outcome of your report, any changes made to the article must be clearly backed up by guidelines (As in they must AGREE with the guidelines, not merely you pasting a MOS link to the edit summery). Otherwise they will be reverted or altered to reflect consensus as discovered. æron phone home 13:51, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:OWN. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:52, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Improvement of articles in not ownership. Reverting changes made to reflect guidelines because they weren't your edits is. æron phone home 13:58, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have multiple editors who disagree with your (incorrect) interpretation of the guidelines. As Jwy has already said, you need to explain (without implementing or reverting to) your suggestions, and only if the current consensus against your suggestions becomes consensus for your changes, then implement them. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:01, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Every single one of my edits WAS explained. You know that big glob of text you may or may not have read? The one you keep insisting belonged on the DAB's talk page? I'm not writing all of that over again, just go and read it. Style guidelines agree with the changes I made... that's why I made them. Familiarise yourself with the guidelines and at least try to see why I did what I did. That's what I did to your edits, even though I didn't like them. That's how I found that a couple things you did were actually correcting mistakes of mine. And because of that, I accepted them without hesitation. But as I said on your report, it's too late in this game not to have an impartial review take place. All this effort, to clean up one otherwise sparsely attended DAB. æron phone home 14:17, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Explained, but without consensus. Yes, your comments on the content of the dab page belong on the dab's talk page. -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:15, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The policies and guidelines cited with each change is the consensus I'm referring to. æron phone home 15:34, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The same policies and guidelines that I referred to with my changes. Difference is my specific changes have support of other editors. -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:39, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The guidelines don't support your edits. Some of them completely disagreeing with you, some of them being misapplied by you to validate something other than the context of the guideline cited. Just because an IP and a user who also didn't read the guidelines made the same mistake doesn't make your edits better. I don't pretend to perfectly understand the guidelines myself and realize that sometimes there is room for interpretation. So anyone who reads them differently that can explain why I'm mistaken or show me a better way to adhere to them has my ear, always. But that is clearly not you. If you were to read my post explaining the edits (Cause I sense you didn't) you would also notice that I made concessions for your "style" of formatting the entries when the style guidelines permitted. It was an effort to come to an agreement with you on how the page looks while still being properly formatted. But that was completely overlooked. æron phone home 15:56, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 139: / Line 139: @@
 ::::::The policies and guidelines cited with each change is the consensus I'm referring to. <b>&nbsp;[[User:AeronPeryton|<span style="color:purple">æron</span>]][[User talk:AeronPeryton|<span style="color:blue">phone</span>]][[Zeta Ursae Minoris|<span style="color:red">home</span>]]&nbsp;</b> 15:34, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 :::::::The same policies and guidelines that I referred to with my changes. Difference is my specific changes have support of other editors. -- [[User:JHunterJ|JHunterJ]] ([[User talk:JHunterJ#top|talk]]) 15:39, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
+::::::::The guidelines don't support your edits. Some of them completely disagreeing with you, some of them being misapplied by you to validate something other than the context of the guideline cited. Just because an IP and a user who also didn't read the guidelines made the same mistake doesn't make your edits better. I don't pretend to perfectly understand the guidelines myself and realize that sometimes there is room for interpretation. So anyone who reads them differently that can explain why I'm mistaken or show me a better way to adhere to them has my ear, always. But that is clearly not you. If you were to read my post explaining the edits (Cause I sense you didn't) you would also notice that I made concessions for your "style" of formatting the entries when the style guidelines permitted. It was an effort to come to an agreement with you on how the page looks while still being properly formatted. But that was completely overlooked. <b>&nbsp;[[User:AeronPeryton|<span style="color:purple">æron</span>]][[User talk:AeronPeryton|<span style="color:blue">phone</span>]][[Zeta Ursae Minoris|<span style="color:red">home</span>]]&nbsp;</b> 15:56, 17 November 2010 (UTC)