User talk:JHunterJ/Archive 22
|
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
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)
- I used a fuller edit summary this time around.[1] -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:20, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
- 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)
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
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)
- 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)
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- You apparently have a problem with:
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- I see you have started the discussion at Talk:Motta. Very good. Move along. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:51, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
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)
- 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)
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? æronphonehome 08:51, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
- 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)
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)
- 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)
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/IncidentArchive649#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)
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? æronphonehome 06:49, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
- 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? æronphonehome 09:10, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
- 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)
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)
- 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)
You ought to familiarise yourself
- Attempted to relocate. Now at the Talk history
- 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. æronphonehome 23:48, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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. æronphonehome 23:56, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
- 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. æronphonehome 00:15, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
- 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. æronphonehome 09:04, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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. æronphonehome 12:31, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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. æronphonehome 09:04, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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. æronphonehome 23:48, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
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. æronphonehome 13:51, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
- Please see WP:OWN. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:52, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
- Improvement of articles in not ownership. Reverting changes made to reflect guidelines because they weren't your edits is. æronphonehome 13:58, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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. æronphonehome 14:17, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
- 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)
- The policies and guidelines cited with each change is the consensus I'm referring to. æronphonehome 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. -- JHunterJ (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. æronphonehome 15:56, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
- Use Talk:Na for your discussion of that article, preferably without reverting multiple other editors while improving your understanding of the guidelines. -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:22, 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. æronphonehome 15:56, 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. -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:39, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
- The policies and guidelines cited with each change is the consensus I'm referring to. æronphonehome 15:34, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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. æronphonehome 14:17, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
- 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)
- Improvement of articles in not ownership. Reverting changes made to reflect guidelines because they weren't your edits is. æronphonehome 13:58, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Continued harassment
You won't even let the ink on your report dry and you're already at it again. Care to explain finally what about the DAB needs "cleaning"? AeronPerytonDAB (talk) 19:00, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, you are continuing to edit war. Care to explain why you will not let the cleanup tag stand for another editor to examine? -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:20, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
- Until you can provide a reason why it in it's current state is in need of cleanup, it doesn't. The article now is as tight as an army bunk. Maybe it could use some tweaking... maybe... but you have proven that you are not the person to say. You clearly do not understand the policies and guideline pertaining to disambiguation articles. Or the behaviour of Admins for that matter. When I detailed those guidelines to you and how they effected your edits you simply reduced to reverting without thinking and posting outright lies that my edits were in violation of some rule somewhere (possibly your ego). This is a terrible waste of time, but I don't have to take it lying down either. I will continue to keep articles in the best way I can, which will always be scrutinised against policy and style guidelines. What you are doing... is destructive and embarrassing. AeronPerytonDAB (talk) 19:31, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry, that's not how it works. You do not get to compel other editors to prove every edit to your satisfaction. Yes, you have wasted a lot of both of our times. -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:33, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
- Compelling you to behave is what I must do before arbitration. I don't consider THAT to be a waste of time... but at some point I will stop and move to the next step. AeronPerytonDAB (talk) 19:47, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
- The problem is claiming WP:OWNership of the dab page -- you are claiming that all other edits must be proven to your satisfaction. -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:52, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
- No, I'm seeing that all entries meet style guidelines. And dammit I want the page to look GOOD. DABs are notoriously weedy, you can't give some people and inch cause it will just lead to further deviation from a functional layout. I explained all of this to you, if you just want to cover your ears and continue to make edits with spotty knowledge (if that) of how they're suppose to be formatted then they will be corrected by people who know better. If you think I'm making mistakes, don't tell me SHOW me... like I did. If you can't then how can you say that -I'm- the one in error? AeronPerytonDAB (talk) 20:00, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
- Please discuss Na at Talk:Na. -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:02, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
- You can ignore me, but I have to give it a genuine effort ya know. æronphonehome 20:09, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
- Right. Please put your efforts in the right place. -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:51, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
- you mean like fixing DABs? I am... but you don't like that. æronphonehome 20:56, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
- Like talking about Na at Talk:Na. I don't like the edits that unfix dabs. -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:58, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
- you mean like fixing DABs? I am... but you don't like that. æronphonehome 20:56, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
- Right. Please put your efforts in the right place. -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:51, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
- You can ignore me, but I have to give it a genuine effort ya know. æronphonehome 20:09, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
- Please discuss Na at Talk:Na. -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:02, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
- No, I'm seeing that all entries meet style guidelines. And dammit I want the page to look GOOD. DABs are notoriously weedy, you can't give some people and inch cause it will just lead to further deviation from a functional layout. I explained all of this to you, if you just want to cover your ears and continue to make edits with spotty knowledge (if that) of how they're suppose to be formatted then they will be corrected by people who know better. If you think I'm making mistakes, don't tell me SHOW me... like I did. If you can't then how can you say that -I'm- the one in error? AeronPerytonDAB (talk) 20:00, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
- The problem is claiming WP:OWNership of the dab page -- you are claiming that all other edits must be proven to your satisfaction. -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:52, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
- Compelling you to behave is what I must do before arbitration. I don't consider THAT to be a waste of time... but at some point I will stop and move to the next step. AeronPerytonDAB (talk) 19:47, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry, that's not how it works. You do not get to compel other editors to prove every edit to your satisfaction. Yes, you have wasted a lot of both of our times. -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:33, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
- Until you can provide a reason why it in it's current state is in need of cleanup, it doesn't. The article now is as tight as an army bunk. Maybe it could use some tweaking... maybe... but you have proven that you are not the person to say. You clearly do not understand the policies and guideline pertaining to disambiguation articles. Or the behaviour of Admins for that matter. When I detailed those guidelines to you and how they effected your edits you simply reduced to reverting without thinking and posting outright lies that my edits were in violation of some rule somewhere (possibly your ego). This is a terrible waste of time, but I don't have to take it lying down either. I will continue to keep articles in the best way I can, which will always be scrutinised against policy and style guidelines. What you are doing... is destructive and embarrassing. AeronPerytonDAB (talk) 19:31, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
- Then why do you make them repeatedly? æronphonehome 21:18, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
- And quit misusing the cleanup tag. You know you are misusing it, you know the page is in excellent keeping and it will always be changing as time goes on. You do this obviously misguided thing and many other things and you expect people to agree with you, you demand you be validated yet give constant misinformation. Why? Why do this? On Wikipedia or anywhere else in life? Why? æronphonehome 21:28, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
- It's nice of you to assume that other editors who visit the page because of the cleanup tag would agree with me. But then you follow up with another thinly veiled personal attack. Stop. -- JHunterJ (talk) 21:29, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
- Wrong, you're only insulting yourself by all of this. I wish you'd just rather improve the Wiki. No, you aren't, not like this. æronphonehome 21:33, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
- It's nice of you to assume that other editors who visit the page because of the cleanup tag would agree with me. But then you follow up with another thinly veiled personal attack. Stop. -- JHunterJ (talk) 21:29, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Trying to close the AN3 case about Na
Hello JHunterJ. Recently AeronPeyton made this concession at my talk page. Are you also willing to agree to wait for consensus to form before reverting the article again? I confess that I was tempted to block AeronPeyton for reverting the cleanup tag. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 21:31, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
- I have already been doing this, yes, per my (now old) note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject_Disambiguation#Na. -- JHunterJ (talk) 21:35, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Chrome
I appreciate you have kept this DAB tidy in the past, but I can't advance it if you closely patrol it. Before I can get a discussion about dyes into the talk page, you've already removed the entry. If I remember correctly, entries are justified on usage, not based on references in article, and I think by multiply removing an item without discussion, the emphasis is on both of us to sort it out, not on me or you. Widefox (talk) 22:31, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
- Entries are based on coverage in articles. Wikipedia disambiguation pages disambiguate ambiguous Wikipedia articles. -- JHunterJ (talk) 23:22, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
- Sure, we're talking cross-purposes. "Chrome dye" -> commonly referred to as "Chrome". MOSDAB states "subject is commonly referred to", and "If there is disagreement about whether this exception applies, it is often best to assume that it does". (It does not depend on mention in articles, but common usage). So we should assume the exception applies, and hence (if my logic is right) dye and tanning entries should be listed too. Widefox (talk) 23:40, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
- Mordant also doesn't mention "chrome dye". I would prefer to discuss this at Talk:Chrome or Talk:Mordant. -- JHunterJ (talk) 23:44, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
- Sure, we're talking cross-purposes. "Chrome dye" -> commonly referred to as "Chrome". MOSDAB states "subject is commonly referred to", and "If there is disagreement about whether this exception applies, it is often best to assume that it does". (It does not depend on mention in articles, but common usage). So we should assume the exception applies, and hence (if my logic is right) dye and tanning entries should be listed too. Widefox (talk) 23:40, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Disruptive editor
Just as an FYI, regarding the issues you are having with User:12.185.31.254 on the Morgan Webb article, he is editing in the same manner (introduction of inappropriate tags etc.) on the Gurbaksh Chahal article to the point that I'm going to have to request the article be semi-protected. --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 14:08, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
There is currently a policy discussion that may concern a Wikiproject that you are a member of Wikipedia_talk:Article_titles#Non-Roman_characters_in_redirects_to_articles. Handschuh-talk to me 02:14, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
Waldheim
J, you are not seeing the whole picture here. While your edit may be more or sell compliant with the dab guidelines, it violates WP:RUS and WP:NC:CITY#Russia. Implying that the place name is "Waldheim" (with "Valdgeym" being an afterthought) is simply not correct, while to say that "Waldheim" may refer to "Valgeym" in the JAO is perfectly fine. Thoughts?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); November 19, 2010; 15:24 (UTC)
- If the redirect is incorrect in its implication, then it should be deleted (through an WP:RFD). The disambiguation page, though, is for readers who have thought of the place and searched on "Waldheim", so the redirect is the appropriate link. -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:33, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
- The redirect itself doesn't need to be deleted—it is fine for search purposes (but not for inclusion on pages). I'll get that part fixed (as well as the description, which is also inaccurate). As for the practice of unnecessary linking to perfectly good pages via completely artificial redirects, I think I had already lodged my protests in the past and have no desire to eat that particular can of worms again, even though I continue to see the practice as entirely pointless. Our readers aren't as stupid as MOSDAB practices imply. They can, for example, read. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); November 19, 2010; 15:51 (UTC)
- Also, just out of curiosity, what the heck did you restore the defaultsort for?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); November 19, 2010; 15:53 (UTC)
- Why delete it? An editor apparently added it, and it isn't wrong. -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:58, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
- It is not wrong; however, it is completely pointless. The page title is just one word, so it is sorted exactly the same with a defaultsort as without it. One could add a whole bunch of invisible crud to the page which wouldn't affect anything and wouldn't be "wrong"; it doesn't mean it should stay there. Right?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); November 19, 2010; 16:05 (UTC)
- So you see no use in it, but another editor did, so again, why remove it? -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:20, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
- Because it serves no purpose and clutters the page source? Not everything "other editors" add should stay, you know.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); November 19, 2010; 16:33 (UTC)
- I disagree that it clutters the page source. I do indeed know that not everything should stay. Not everything should be removed , though, you know. DEFAULTSORT is an innocuous addition to any page, and has subtle benefits, like assisting later-added categories and keeping a name in place through page moves. -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:37, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
- "Keeping a name in place through page moves"? I beg to differ. In many cases when a page is moved the defaultsort key needs to be changed as well, meaning that if you had an "innocuous" defaultsort for no good reason, you are just as likely to invite problems as you are to solve them. To say nothing of the fact that it highly unlikely this disambig page will be moved elsewhere (I can't think of even a theoretical scenario for this page). So, it's just clutter.
- Anyway, you may also consider the fact that this particular defaultsort was added by a banned user evading his ban. Subtle benefits indeed.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); November 19, 2010; 16:47 (UTC)
- Except it's not clutter either. It is just DEFAULTSORT. -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:50, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
- OK, give me just one example of how having it on this particular page is more beneficial than not having it. Please?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); November 19, 2010; 19:12 (UTC)
- That is unrelated to whether or not it's clutter. No benefit, no harm, no problem. -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:14, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
- OK, then tell me, if I add a few red links which do not meet WP:DABRL but are obviously valid (i.e., not vandalism and easy to verify off-wiki) to a disambig page, how would that be different? There is no benefit since they don't lead anywhere, there is no harm from having them, nor are they, according to you, clutter. They would even serve a marginal useful purpose. Yet you remove those left and right every week?
- Or how about a bunch of HTML comments in the source to aid the editors? Should those be left alone as well? I'm just curious as to where you draw the line.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); November 19, 2010; 19:23 (UTC)
- I'm assuming good faith on an actual instance. You're dragging it out into a drama. -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:33, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
- Actually, just like I said, I am merely curious. I find your logic quite peculiar and somewhat selective, is all. If you don't want to or can't answer, just say so, and I'll bug off with no hard feelings. To put it another way, one will never learn anything new if one doesn't ask questions :) Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); November 19, 2010; 19:56 (UTC)
- Well let's start instead with how is the single short DEFAULTSORT tag in the footer of the source clutter? -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:57, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
- My definition of "clutter" is something that takes up space, serves no useful purpose, and may or may not do any harm. What's yours?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); November 19, 2010; 20:55 (UTC)
- Let's use Wiktionary's: "a confused disordered jumble of things", or as a verb, "to fill something with clutter". So, DEFAULTSORT wouldn't qualify. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:14, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
- Let's use a real dictionary instead: clutter—a crowded or confused mass or collection; things that clutter a place. A useless DEFAULTSORT qualifies to me.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); November 22, 2010; 15:45 (UTC)
- M-W's suits me. The short DEFAULTSORT line doesn't crowd or confuse anything, and is hardly a mass or collection. -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:14, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
- It crowds the code, it may be confusing to newbish users what it is there for, and it is unhelpful. Hence, clutter. Pretty much the same would apply to the HTML comments I mentioned above, no?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); November 22, 2010; 16:19 (UTC)
- M-W's suits me. The short DEFAULTSORT line doesn't crowd or confuse anything, and is hardly a mass or collection. -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:14, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
- Let's use a real dictionary instead: clutter—a crowded or confused mass or collection; things that clutter a place. A useless DEFAULTSORT qualifies to me.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); November 22, 2010; 15:45 (UTC)
- Let's use Wiktionary's: "a confused disordered jumble of things", or as a verb, "to fill something with clutter". So, DEFAULTSORT wouldn't qualify. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:14, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
- My definition of "clutter" is something that takes up space, serves no useful purpose, and may or may not do any harm. What's yours?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); November 19, 2010; 20:55 (UTC)
- Well let's start instead with how is the single short DEFAULTSORT tag in the footer of the source clutter? -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:57, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
- Actually, just like I said, I am merely curious. I find your logic quite peculiar and somewhat selective, is all. If you don't want to or can't answer, just say so, and I'll bug off with no hard feelings. To put it another way, one will never learn anything new if one doesn't ask questions :) Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); November 19, 2010; 19:56 (UTC)
- I'm assuming good faith on an actual instance. You're dragging it out into a drama. -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:33, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
- That is unrelated to whether or not it's clutter. No benefit, no harm, no problem. -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:14, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
- OK, give me just one example of how having it on this particular page is more beneficial than not having it. Please?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); November 19, 2010; 19:12 (UTC)
- Except it's not clutter either. It is just DEFAULTSORT. -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:50, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
- I disagree that it clutters the page source. I do indeed know that not everything should stay. Not everything should be removed , though, you know. DEFAULTSORT is an innocuous addition to any page, and has subtle benefits, like assisting later-added categories and keeping a name in place through page moves. -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:37, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
- Because it serves no purpose and clutters the page source? Not everything "other editors" add should stay, you know.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); November 19, 2010; 16:33 (UTC)
- So you see no use in it, but another editor did, so again, why remove it? -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:20, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
- It is not wrong; however, it is completely pointless. The page title is just one word, so it is sorted exactly the same with a defaultsort as without it. One could add a whole bunch of invisible crud to the page which wouldn't affect anything and wouldn't be "wrong"; it doesn't mean it should stay there. Right?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); November 19, 2010; 16:05 (UTC)
- Why delete it? An editor apparently added it, and it isn't wrong. -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:58, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
- Also, just out of curiosity, what the heck did you restore the defaultsort for?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); November 19, 2010; 15:53 (UTC)
- The redirect itself doesn't need to be deleted—it is fine for search purposes (but not for inclusion on pages). I'll get that part fixed (as well as the description, which is also inaccurate). As for the practice of unnecessary linking to perfectly good pages via completely artificial redirects, I think I had already lodged my protests in the past and have no desire to eat that particular can of worms again, even though I continue to see the practice as entirely pointless. Our readers aren't as stupid as MOSDAB practices imply. They can, for example, read. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); November 19, 2010; 15:51 (UTC)
Serpula dab
Hi JHunterJ, I'm confused as to why you reverted my dab page creation for Serpula. Please explain what I did wrong and what I need to do for similar instances in the future. I have noticed several dozen instances of fungal genera with the same name as genera from other Kingdoms in my previous work creating taxon pages, but didn't do anything about them; now I'd like to take a more active approach and make these dabs properly, so any education would be appreciated. Thanks, Sasata (talk) 17:05, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
- If you create a new article but the title you want to use it already "occupied" (e.g., "Serpula"), normally you would just disambiguate your title ("Serpula (fungi)") and hatnote from the existing article. There's no need to move the existing article, which has been the primary topic for the title from its creation until the new article. If you do move it, you might also go update the links to the old title that should now be pipe-linked to the new one; and then you could create the disambiguation page at the base name. Having the base name point to the (disambiguation)-titled disambiguation page will bring it up on Wikipedia:Malplaced disambiguation pages, which is where I found it. (Note that the arrangement I left it in is the path of least resistance: incoming wikilinks remain correct, readers looking for the fungi genus are still only one click away, through the hatnote on the animal genus article.) -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:24, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
- Ok, dab title & hatnote on existing page... I'll stick to that method. Easier than making a dab page anyway - thanks. Sasata (talk) 17:38, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
Feaster
Hi JHunterJ, Alright, I want to put as much info. as I can about the Feasters and you want to conform. Could We compromise? Can I start up a new page about the Feaster Family?
Sincerely, TFeaster —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tfeaster (talk • contribs) 17:09, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
- consolidated at User talk:Tfeaster#November 2010
Tallahassee
Hello JHunterJ. I just reverted the change you made in the Tallahassee article, in which you deleted the "Namesakes" section. Note that this is not really a disambiguation section. I feel that it includes useful information, at least relevant to the notability of the city. Tim Ross (talk) 15:52, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
Baja California
I replied on my own talk page. --Seattle Skier (talk) 18:57, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Thank you
Thank you for watching the Dayton, Ohio page and identifying signs of vandalism. I have noticed that you take good care to watch the page for this type of activity, and I wanted to thank you for doing this. Texas141 (talk) 20:38, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
- And thanks for that -- good news is always welcome. :-) -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:39, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Tfeaster
See [5] which tempts me to indefinitely block him until he agrees to stop this nonsense. But maybe you can persuade me otherwise. :-) Dougweller (talk) 20:00, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
- Wow, I missed the tweaks to my part of it. Actually, I was going to go straight to "indefinite" myself, but thought maybe a week might shake some cobwebs. I'm afraid I'm not going to be able to offer much persuasion against your plan. -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:03, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
EP dab page
Hi J. I'm thinking it might be a bad idea to start linking all unnamed EP recordings to the EP dab page. Could turn into a very massive list, and maybe not the right use for a dab page? The Interior(Talk) 21:29, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
- If they're ambiguous with the title "EP", it's the right place. Very massive lists on dab pages have been handled with sectioning and table of contents. I suppose if this one became too long in the future, we could use collapsible sections too. -- JHunterJ (talk) 23:05, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
- Hmmm. What about this page WP:DDD, which asks us "Don’t add every article that contains the title."? There are 4700 EP articles just in the 2000's, see Category:EPs by year, many with EP in the title. I thought we weren't supposed to list partial article matches. The Interior(Talk) 05:40, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
- Correct. If they are just partial title matches, then they aren't actually ambiguous and don't need to be titled. The EP (album) page I merged to the dab only included the album that were titled EP, and if any are missing, I don't expect it to be a large number. These are recordings titled EP, not unnamed EP recordings. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:33, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
- Hmmm. What about this page WP:DDD, which asks us "Don’t add every article that contains the title."? There are 4700 EP articles just in the 2000's, see Category:EPs by year, many with EP in the title. I thought we weren't supposed to list partial article matches. The Interior(Talk) 05:40, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
Hey, thanks for the informative edit summary on the Underwood article. There actually is mention of the enhancement in the text, and has been for some time - I respectfully invite you to look again, under "Other appearances". Townlake (talk) 20:15, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
- Ah, got it. I changed the note to "pre-augmentation". I was searching with "enhanc". -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:37, 16 December 2010 (UTC)