User talk:JHunterJ

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
This is the talk page for talking to, with or about me - JHunterJ
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.

Stylization of the "common name"[edit]

In January 2013 there was a "RfC on COMMONSTYLE proposal" at WT:AT in which you expressed an interest. FYI there is a similar debate taking place at the moment, see Wikipedia talk:Article titles#Stylization of the "common name" -- PBS-AWB (talk) 12:13, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Away team[edit]

Am I guessing right in assuming you never watched Star Trek? Because this is just wrong. Viriditas (talk) 01:51, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Please see the requested move discussion here. My concern is not with the formatting of the dab but with the target of the title. In your previous edit, you mistakenly removed one of the major uses of the term. Regardless of the primary use, the video game is not the target. Viriditas (talk) 02:15, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Your guess is wrong. I'm guessing you've never read WP:MALPLACED, though, nor the edit summaries directing editors to WP:RM instead of creating the malplaced disambiguation page. Also, no uses were mistakenly removed. The article Star Trek does not MOS:DABMENTION "away team". -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:04, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
JHunterJ, your edits, your removal of accurate information, your reverts to incorrect primary topics—all of it was unsupported and basically irrational. This is not the kind of behavior we expect from an admin. The video game has never been the primary topic at any time. Why you would restore this inaccuracy when informed of it is mind boggling. You appeal to rules as if they somehow allow you to do wrong things. I've seen you do this before. Viriditas (talk) 18:12, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Viriditas, your edits contrary to the consensus guidelines after those guidelines were pointed out was irrational. This is not the kind of behavior we expect from editors. The video was the primary topic for some time. You ignore rules as if they somehow don't apply to you. I don't remember our previous interaction, but I'd guess you were wrong then too. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:25, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
What part of the word "guideline" is giving you difficulty? My edits were entirely in concordance with the facts and the consensus now formed on the RM discussion. 1) The video game has never been the primary topic, yet after this has been explained to you, you keep adding it back, in error. 2) Your removal of key entries from the dab page is in error, and your removal of those entries demonstrates you are more concerned with following the letter of the guideline rather than keeping Wikipedia accurate. This edit demonstrates poor judgment, and in the future, I will not be relying on your judgment again. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. That's the policy you violated by insisting we follow a guideline over good judgment. Viriditas (talk) 04:42, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Consensus is forming in the current discussion. Once the discussion is closed, then the consensus will have been formed. It's not a complicated distinction. Your addition of incorrect entries demonstrates that you disagree with the disambiguation guidelines but haven't gotten consensus for ignoring the rules here. You're more concerned with your opinion that keeping Wikipedia accurate. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:56, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Wrong again. Either your reading comprehension is poor, or there is a serious competence problem on your end, perhaps a combination of both. Your most recent edits demonstrate this problem. There was never any community consensus to redirect the away team article. How in the world did you decide to redirect it to a video game article when all of the links show this is not the primary redirect? And furthermore, why would you delete the page history? Now, you've created an enormous amount of work for competent admins to do. Your involvement in this debacle makes you ineligible to use the tools, which you did anyway to promote a singular POV not shared by the community. Before I take you to ANI, I will ask you one last time, why did you redirect the article to a video game, and why do you continue to modify the dab page to support that view, when there is zero evidence supporting it? Viriditas (talk) 19:52, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Wrong again, indeed. Other editors have also told you to wait until the RM finishes, instead of treating it as a fait accompli. You failed to distinguish me from EEMIV when asking why EEMIV decided to redirect it to a video game article. No page histories have been deleted, although I did fix the mess you created when you assumed fait accompli by temporarily deleting one article in order to split its page history. Your statement re my being "ineligible" to use the tools reflects your continuing disconnect from reality. Please, do take me to AN/I if you feel like wasting more time. -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:15, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
As a result of this answer, I am composing an ANI report at this very moment. EEMIV's decision to redirect the article to a video game article was never supported by anyone /except you/, and by doing this, you violated PRIMARYTOPIC as well as community consensus. More recently, you have attempted to promote this erroneous primary topic with your admin tools, making you INVOLVED. Is that clear? Viriditas (talk) 20:20, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
None of my admin work there has done anything except fix WP:MALPLACED, leaving me still quite uninvolved -- I have never edited the video game article except to restore the needed hatnote AFAIK, and I'll continue to use the admin tools to fix the problems that require them. Clear? -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:36, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
You enforced the actions of a single user against community consensus, actions which erroneously redirected an article to the wrong target, and you enforced these changes, without consensus, on the disambiguation page pointing to these targets. When your errors were pointed out to you, instead of taking responsibility, fixing the problems, and moving on, you denied there was a problem, used your admin tools to enforce your views against consensus, against PRIMARYTOPIC, and against INVOLVED and NOTBUREAU. To make matters worse, you then blamed others for the problem. I hope that covers it. If I missed anything, let me know. Viriditas (talk) 20:45, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
You've missed: (a) your assumption of bad faith; (b) your disregard of the guidelines; and (c) your treatment of a current RM as a fait accompli. -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:52, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

ANI notice[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Viriditas (talk) 21:06, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

KC, Cross-linking[edit]

Hi, I noticed that you recently reverted some of my edits. I just read the MOS:DABPAGENAME, and I think that I understood the reason for your edits on Cross-linking. however, "KC" is the most used abbreviation for keratoconus, don't you think this disease should be mentioned in the KC? k18s (talk) 19:41, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Once information about KC being the most-used abbreviation for the disease can be added to keratoconus, then it could be listed on the dab page. But if it doesn't warrant mentioning on the article, there's no Wikipedia ambiguity. (MOS:DABMENTION) -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:05, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Talking about dab pages, I hope you could help me with this issue too. I received an automated note about pointing a link from corneal collagen cross-linking to the corneal ectasia (dab page). is this a correct use of the dab page? can I ignore the BPL bot's message? k18s (talk) 19:59, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Does it not intend just one of the corneal ectasia topics? If it does need t link to the broader concept, the dab page might need to be reworked as a broad concept article -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:05, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
I've mentioned the abbreviations with references in the article and listed the disease on the dab pages. corneal ectasia can refer to any ectatic disorders of the cornea, and since this disorders have similar management methods, sometimes it may be convenient to link to the dab page instead of single articles. k18s (talk) 20:01, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
Right, and when that's the case, it's usually because the dab isn't a dab, but a list of things within a broader concept. But if you really really need to link to a dab page intentionally, use corneal ectasia (disambiguation) (WP:INTDABLINK). -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:23, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for your help. I've created corneal ectasia (disambiguation) as a redirect. I hope it's okay now. k18s (talk) 15:46, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion[edit]

Information icon Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 18:51, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

February 2015 – GWB[edit]

How come there can only be "one blue link per line" as seen here on GWB? I'm a little confused. —Magicaluniverse (talk) 04:37, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

(tps) This MOS:DABENTRY is where you will find the relevant policy and guidelines. MarnetteD|Talk 04:43, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks! —Magicaluniverse (talk) 04:50, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

February 2015[edit]

Stop icon

Your recent editing history at Quantum leap shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
The majority consensus on the talk page was to redirect to the television show. And now even more accounts have switched it to the show, with only you reverting. JOJ Hutton 19:53, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Funny. Protecting the discussed consensus is not edit warring. -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:55, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
Funny, by my count, it was 6-4 in favor of redirecting to the television show. That's mot you 'Protecting the discussed consensus', that is you redirecting the article against the wishes of several other editors. Its edit warring and it needs to stop.--JOJ Hutton 20:58, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Merger discussion for Widow maker[edit]


An article that you have been involved in editing, Widow maker, has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Maestroso simplo (talk) 01:34, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Andrew McMillen for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Andrew McMillen is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrew McMillen until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Transcendence (talk) 19:24, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Andrew McMillen[edit]

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Andrew McMillen requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here.  TOW  19:48, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Leverage listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]


An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Leverage. Since you had some involvement with the Leverage redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Ivanvector (talk) 14:52, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

World's worst title[edit]

Hey JHunterJ,

I see you are on a wiki break, but since this isn't exactly a pressing matter I thought I'd leave my question here for you to think about when you have time.

I was considering another move request for the 'John Gielgud, roles and awards' article. I think the real problem is that the title is something you would find an an index; if the title was in a sentence it would be gramatically incorrect. That's why a lot of us don't like it, I think. And we can certainly come up with gramatically correct prose for the title, so we feel that we should do so.

The conceptual issue I have with this is that there are articles such as United States Presidential election, 2000 which ultimately seems to me to be the same format of title as the godforsaken one. (Wouldnt "2000 .... election" be better according to the justifications for Mr Gielgud)?

Am I not seeing the difference? Or maybe the election article title is sub-optimal? The policy about descriptive article titles doesn't have extensive guidance. Your thoughts are welcomed. AgnosticAphid talk 15:33, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Once Upon a Time[edit]

In cause you didn't get an automatic notification, you might want to check out what I just wrote at Talk:Once Upon a Time. —BarrelProof (talk) 23:10, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Edit warring[edit]

relocated to Talk:John Gielgud, roles and awards#Edit warring

Thank you for your help![edit]

I have made an edit on page Savoy (disambiguation) and you reverted it as partial title match. Thank you for your edit, I had not avare of this policy before! :) Axelock (talk) 10:39, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Straw poll[edit]

Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Disambiguation_pages#Straw_poll_results - please correct as needed. Swpbtalk 19:49, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Victory (disambiguation)[edit]

See discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disambiguation#Victory (disambiguation) disagreement. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:01, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Rawson House[edit]

properly relocated to Talk:Rawson House#Rawson House -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:20, 22 May 2015 (UTC)


I've told you twice they are NOT improvements. You obviously favour a very bald style indeed, but this is certainly not mandated by WP guidlines - far from it. You are not a very experienced text editor, and notoriously intransigent, so I don't think I can be bothered to get into an item-by-item argument about it. Just ask yourself whether there might be a reason why things are expressed the way they are, and whether those reasons might be good ones. Johnbod (talk) 17:13, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

You've offered your opinion that they are not improvements, even though some of them obviously were improvements. You can't be bothered but I'm intransigent? Just ask yourself if there's no way other people might help express things. Experienced text editors also know it's "guidelines", not "guidlines". -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:55, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
Other editors certainly, you apparently not. If you didn't keep blanket reverting it might be easier to sort out any acceptable changes. Johnbod (talk) 20:00, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
That comment only makes sense if you are talking to yourself, since I broke out my edits into discrete units, which you then blanket reverted. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:31, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

You're Invited![edit]

{{WPW Referral}}