User talk:Jojhutton

My FAQ

Q1: Why do you remove the "United States" from articles? Isn't it more thorough to mention the country?

A1: It is common convention among English speaking scholars to write geographical areas in the United States as (City, State), and leave out the country. Every English language manual of style agrees that this is the proper way to write it. WP:PLACE covers this very nicely on wikipedia and is meant, despite the title, to be applied to all articles. Some have disagreed, and thats okay, but there is no convention anywhere on wikipedia that says that (City, State, Country) is the best and proper way to present the information. In many cases, the country name is already placed in the info box, making the addition in the body of the article redundant.

Q2: Have there been previous discussions on this topic?

A2: Yes there has. This archived discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style seems to agree that the convention is (City, State).

Q3: Are you the only one who feels this way?

A3: No, of course not. In various discussions, Other users have expressed support for this convention in the past, in one way or another. They are: User:Woogee, User:Wikidemon, User:ShadowRangerRIT(except in the infobox), User:Pmanderson, User:Tony1, User:Jimfbleak, User:Sambc, User:DGG

Oh God it's all falling apart!

This editor is an Experienced Editor and is entitled to display this Service Badge.

If you leave me a message here, I will answer here

AFC West
	W	L	T	PCT	DIV	CONF	PF	PA	STK
(2) San Diego Chargers	13	3	0	.813	5–1	9–3	454	320	W11
Denver Broncos	8	8	0	.500	3–3	6–6	326	324	L4
Oakland Raiders	5	11	0	.313	2–4	4–8	197	379	L2
Kansas City Chiefs	4	12	0	.250	2–4	3–9	294	424	W1

This editor is an
Experienced Editor
and is entitled to display this
Service Badge.

Wikipedia:Template messages

Nazi Germany

I tried to revert the latest addition (someone added their userpage contents) but a bot signed the addition and meant I had to undo two things instead of one and before I got to the second you managed to delete it anyway. Thanks for that, sorry if I got in the way. Weakopedia (talk) 13:56, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Looks like we were both on top of our game today. Good job. Cheers.--Jojhutton (talk) 13:58, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 25 January 2010

• BLP madness: BLP deletions cause uproar

• Births and deaths: Wikipedia biographies in the 20th century

• News and notes: Biographies galore, Wikinews competition, and more

• In the news: Wikipedia the disruptor?

• WikiProject report: Writers wanted! The Wikiproject Novels interviews

• Features and admins: Approved this week

• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 03:59, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Mentorship

I write because your name is listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject User Rehab. I wonder if you might consider joining others in sharing the burden of a mentorship committee for me?

Perhaps you might consider taking a look at an old edit at Wikipedia:Mentorship#Unintended consequences? In the search for a mentor deemed acceptable by ArbCom, I cite this as a plausible context for discussing what I have in mind.

Please contact me by e-mail or on my talk page. --Tenmei (talk) 06:45, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 1 February 2010

• From the editor: Writers wanted to cover strategy, public policy

• Strategic planning: The challenges of strategic planning in a volunteer community

• News and notes: New CTO, Britain Loves Wikipedia, Telefónica partnership, Multimedia and more

• In the news: Wikipedia on CDs, BBC uses Wikipedia content, and more

• WikiProject report: WikiProject Dinosaurs

• Sister projects: Sister project roundup

• Features and admins: Approved this week

• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 21:24, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

??

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I said "Unconstructive?: That's debatable." How does that qualify as an attack? Please tell me in your own words, instead of copying and pasting an answer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.170.55.252 (talk) 03:19, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLVII (January 2010)

The January 2010 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) 03:55, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Response

YOU ARE LYING AND SLANDERING MY NAME! YOU ARE RACIST AND YOUR BIAS SLURS AND harrassment. I did not vandalize a page you IDIOT PIECE OF SHITSblaize718 (talk) 19:31, 7 February 2010 (UTC)