User talk:JHunterJ/Archive 28

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.

Welcome back

It's nice to see you've returned. I took a break a few years back and found it gave me a better perspective on things, and I hope you find that yours does the same. Now get back to work, you slug! --ShelfSkewed Talk 16:50, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! It's good to be back. I think. -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:18, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Post-move clean-up for Secretariat

Hello. I notice that there are "move discussion" notices remaining on the Talk:Secretariat and Talk:Secretariat (horse) pages, and that those notices now refer to the wrong destination page. The actual move discussion record is found at Talk:Secretariat (administrative office). What is the right way to clean that up? —BarrelProof (talk) 19:20, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

I think just updating the target, like this, is appropriate. -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:24, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

3RR warning

Regretfully, and in the interest of even-handed treatment of all parties, you are hereby politely reminded that any further reversions of the MOS page for abbreviations, including but not limited to those regarding the use of commas with abbreviations such as e.g. and i.e., either individually by you or in conjunction with other editors, will constitute a WP:3RR violation. I believe that your changes to the MOS/Abbreviations page are fully supported by present talk page consensus and the demonstrable facts that the previous change was made without consensus and is now being tendentiously stonewalled by Noetica and Tony 1. That being said, I do not wish to see you blocked for a 3RR violation. Please accept this gentle warning in the spirit in which it was intended, JHunterJ. Thank you. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:47, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

So accepted. Thanks! -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:21, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Request for clarification

• Talk:Dennis_and_Gnasher#Requested_move

Please clarify/explain your close, what arguements were weighed, and how they were weighed in determining the close. Thank you. - jc37 15:04, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

3 supports, 1 oppose, the one oppose had an appropriate response countering from the proposer. -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:08, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

How did you assess User:Nicknack009's comments? - jc37 16:18, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Aha, now it's a little clearer. I originally read Nicknack's comments as a rebuttal against LtPowers' suggestion that Dennis the Menace (U.S. comics) could be moved to the base name. I see now that he was opposing the original proposal. Even with that, however, WP:PRECISION favors natural disambiguation (even if not the most common name, as long as it's not obscure or made up) over parenthetical disambiguation (when it would be required on the most common name). -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:35, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I've been thinking about this for a few hours now, and I just can't get around the concern that you're counting votes, or at least asterisks, and (worse) not associating comments with a person. It would seem somewhat obvious that your initial 3:1 assessment didn't include User:Nicknack009's comments. Otherwise (due to initially misunderstanding his comments) you would have said 4:1.

My concern here isn't so much the outcome (it was within admin discretion). It's concerns with process, with the how and the why of the assessment.

I know you know how to do these things, I'll merely respectfully ask that you please be more diligent in doing the "due diligence" of a close. - jc37 22:25, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Ironic, that you fear I'm just counting votes, after my recent (and ongoing) morass from Perth. But yes, I missed one of the !votes—which opened as if it were a response to a tangential issue and not a !vote on the current request, was indented, and buried the "support"/"oppose"—and that's mea culpa. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:19, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Perth closed

An arbitration case involving the article Perth has been closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

1. JHunterJ is advised to respond calmly and courteously to queries regarding Wikipedia-related conduct and administrator actions.
2. Deacon of Pndapetzim is admonished for use of administrative tools while involved, and for reversing another administrator's legitimate administrative action without first entering into discussion.
3. Kwamikagami is desysopped for use of administrative tools while involved in an editing dispute, and for reinstating a reverted administrative action without clear discussion leading to a consensus decision. He may regain the admin toolkit through a fresh request for adminship.
4. Gnangarra is admonished for use of administrative tools while involved in an editing dispute, and for reinstating a reverted administrative action without clear discussion leading to a consensus decision.

For the Arbitration Committee, Lord Roem (talk) 14:40, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Cailifo page moved

Hello JHunter, I am curious why/when the request to move the page had been made. I am unable to locate any detail on this matter and would appreciate being directed to some place to get clarification on the move. Thanks, Clftruthseeking (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:48, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

It was requested at Talk:Choy Li Fut#Requested move. Cheers! -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:01, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Winston Churchill (born 1940)

Winston Churchill (born 1940), a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Winston Churchill (born 1940) and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Winston Churchill (born 1940) during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Barryob (Contribs) (Talk) 13:56, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

John Danby - (disambiguation)

Hi there, maybe you can help. When John Danby is clicked, it goes straight to a footballer page, yet it is a Disambiguation? Is it not a malplaced disambiguation page? I would fix it myself, but I'm not exactly sure how to do it, I noticed you fixed the Andy Cook Disambiguation, so hopefully you can fix it? Thanks. --Nelly 1975 (talk) 18:27, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Nelly 1975. John Danby (disambiguation) is a disambiguation page. In this case, the pages are arranged as if there is a primary topic, a footballer. That's a valid arrangement, if the footballer is the primary topic for the title "John Danby". If it's not the primary topic, the footballer article should be moved (e.g., to John Danby (footballer)), and if there's no primary topic the disambiguation page should be moved to the base name. For more clear-cut examples of ambiguous names with primary topics, note that William Shakespeare and Michael Jordan have primary topics even though Wikipedia has coverage of other people with those names.

In order to change the current arrangement, you might use WP:RM to move the footballer article. Since the target name is also not occupied already, you could even move it without a request, boldly, although that might be reverted. Either way, an admin (me, or someone else) would then be needed to move the disambiguation page to the base name, but the other move needs to happen first. Cheers! -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:35, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

RPG BLPs

Hey there,

I was recalling how you [1] improved the Matt Forbeck article, and I was wondering if you would be willing to take a look at other articles in similar shape? BOZ (talk) 16:16, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Hey, howdy. Yes, I am willing, but piecemeal. Is there a short or long list you've already got, or just the category in general? -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:17, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

The category(es) in general, at your leisure, if you so desire. There are quite a few that are already relatively well sourced, so I could take the time to pick out the ones in most need of help. I know that Paul Bonner needed some help before it got deleted, and could probably be restored if we had some decent sourcing. Off the top of my head, Lisa Stevens, H. Ed Cox, and Eric Deschamps could also be restored if we had sources. Anne Gray McCready and Greg A. Vaughan are currently marked with the notability template. BOZ (talk) 16:30, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Noted. But nothing on McCready or Vaughan in my news db. I will also check the others. -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:27, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Have you had any luck with the others? BOZ (talk) 01:02, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Let me know if you get a chance to take a look at the others. :) BOZ (talk) 19:57, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Lisa Stevens. -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:22, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Hey, thanks, she's looking much better! Have you had any luck with Bonner, Cox, or Deschamps? BOZ (talk) 19:29, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

No, I didn't find more than a passing mention of any of them. Perhaps my database does not include sources that are more likely to feature artists. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:00, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough, thanks for checking! I really appreciate what you did with Lisa Stevens. Unfortunately I do have a lot of artists that need better sourcing, but we'll have to see how that goes.  ;) Maybe we’ll have better success with game designers like you did with Forbeck and Ann Dupuis. Meanwhile, I put together a list of bio articles which have a tag indicating that they need additional citations – I could post that in pieces if you want to take a look? BOZ (talk) 14:20, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Sure, sounds like a plan. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:28, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Sounds good. For starters, how about Aaron Allston, Allen Varney, Al Escudero, Ari Marmell, and Bruce Heard? BOZ (talk) 14:46, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I've spun off User:JHunterJ/RPG BLPs for this plan. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:26, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Awesome - you can add this too, if you like. :) BOZ (talk) 13:45, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the cites on Allston. :) BOZ (talk) 13:48, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

move of First Transjordan attack on Amman

I wonder if you would reconsider your decision to drop the reference to 1918 in brackets after the name of this article to highlight its time frame? My concern is mainly for those searching Wikipedia who may stumble upon this article and be confused as there has been so much conflict in the region. --Rskp (talk) 04:24, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

The lede addresses the time frame and should avoid reader confusion. If the year is needed in the title, it would need to be phrased as part of the title, not as a qualifier to distinguish it from other "First Transjordan attack on Amman" articles. -- JHunterJ (talk) 02:15, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

OK, thanks for that. All the best, --Rskp (talk) 08:04, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Beg to Differ

The palace, the graveyard at Imogiri and publications in Indonesian regularly carry the appelation/acronym PBX - so I am not so sure what your claim to authority might be, there is a very widespread usage of acronyms in Indonesian culture, even whole dictionaries dedicated to the issue. SatuSuro 15:12, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

It's only based on the information in the article, which is the authority we use for Wikipedia disambiguation pages. If you can add that information about the common usage of the acronym to the article, there'd be no problem with adding it to the disambiguation page. Cheers! -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:04, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

OK - , an in-country admin has made amends - cheers SatuSuro 00:26, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Holmiella

Hi. For the moment I'm fine with the changes you made, after I created the new pages Holmiella (disambiguation), Holmiella (fungus) and Holmiella (arthropod), if this is consistent with how these matters are handled generally. I can see why one would give priority to the previous Holmiella-page that I redirected to Holmiella (disambiguation) because Holmiella (arthropod) only redirects to Holmiidae for now. However, I will be working on the Holmiidae-article shortly (and on articles on the taxa attributed to the Holmiidae). That is why I came across the ambiguous nature of Holmiella in the first place. I would like to be reassured that once the Holmiella (arthropod) becomes substantive, I can restore the structure I build before, without other editors changing it back again to the structure that actually gives priority to the fungus-article, which is nothing more than a stub anyway. Please let me know what you think. Kind Regards, Dwergenpaartje (talk) 18:11, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Moving a page#Before moving a page -- you can't move an article by cutting and pasting its contents to a new article title. If you think the addition of the new page might change the primary topic of "Holmiella" (and it very well might), the current page will need to be moved to the new title and then the resulting redirect can be turned into a disambiguation page (and any incoming wikilinks fixed). Or the current page's current hatnote can simply be updated to point to the new article instead of to Holmiidae. Cheers! -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:19, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I learn something new each day. I'll try to follow the guidance you provided the link to. And if it turns out too difficult, I hope I can ask your help. Kind Regards, Dwergenpaartje (talk) 14:44, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Absolutely. Once the new page is stubbed, let me know and I can show the hatnote option and talk about the option to move the pages around. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:53, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
	Thanks for your friendly response to the new editor who posted a request for help at Wikipedia talk:Citing sources. You solved her immediate problem and simultaneously gave her an example of how to format sources for the future. Wikipedia needs more people like you. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:10, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! -- JHunterJ (talk) 10:42, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Fake

I wasn't aware this is a dismbiguation page. I apologize! Etan J. Tal^(talk) 20:13, 15 September 2012 (UTC) BTW - typing "tin" results in "Tin (disambiguation)", while typing "fake" results in "Fake" (no clear indication of disambiguation). Might this be a good reason for my mistake? Etan J. Tal^(talk) 04:17, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Tin has a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC (like Earth or William Shakespeare) while Fake doesn't. The proposal is occasionally made to move all base-name disambiguations to " (disambiguation)" titles, but it's never gained consensus. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:02, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

The fake article included two photos before I inserted mine there too. This shows that some careless (alas devoted) Wpedians enter this pitfall. I assume that being a member of WikiProject Disambiguation you might know how frequent it happens... Etan J. Tal^(talk) 14:34, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we request your participation in the discussion to help find a resolution. The thread is "Broadsword". Thank you! — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 22:59, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Alvarado

Hello and good evening JHunter. I don't mean to pester but was restoring the original redirect at Alvarado really the best route? Having a looked at the dab is seems quite clear that there is no primary topic. Wikilinks are also far easier to fix when they redirect to the dab; correcting these first would involve quite a bit of unnecessary wading through of the article. I can put it through WP:RM but this seems unnecessary. France3470 (talk) 19:12, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

How is it quite clear looking at the disambiguation page? -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:16, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Ignoring other factors, the traffic stats indicate pretty clearly that there are plenty of other highly sought articles, and very unlikely a primary topic: Alvarado, California (332 views), Alvarado, Tolima (109), Alvarado (municipality) (193), Alvarado, Texas (1462), Alvarado, Minnesota (221), Alvarado, Virginia (159) compared to Alvarado (275) and Alvarado, Veracruz (720). France3470 (talk) 19:31, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I didn't see the traffic stats on the dab page. :-). Re-moving. -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:25, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Excellent, thank you! I've gone ahead and resolved the dab links too. :) All the best, France3470 (talk) 20:53, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Terraria

Hey JHunter, I hope everything is faring well for you. I do have to comment about your revision on one of my edits, adding Minecraft to the See Also seems to me, the best course of action. Yes I understand that it was stated once in the whole topic, but Minecraft is a game like Terraria and should be seen in the See Also section. What do you think?

Best Regards Skyshadow382 (talk) 17:00, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I think that "See also" is for listing related topics that are not linked in the article but could be, per WP:SEEALSO. -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:26, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I see, thanks then! And best of luck to you!Skyshadow382 (talk) 19:40, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Revealing personal informations

I noticed a comment which contains personal information. I undone it but it might be a good idea to delete it from the system until its background is clarified. Thanks.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 18:45, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

What? -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:46, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I noticed in recent changes that you are admin who is online. Two users in question were blocked recently because of edit war in Occupation of Smyrna. Now one of them sent a message to another which contains personal information. I am concerned about it. Therefore I proposed its deletion until its background is clarified. I apologize if I am wrong.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 18:49, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I am not aware of any problem with the exchange (but that could be a lack of breadth of admin knowledge on my part) -- are either of the users in question objecting to the message? -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:57, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Alexikua (whose personal information are presented) is not online. Therefore I proposed deletion of the messages "until its background is clarified." Now I realised that User:E4024 made mistake(?) and posted the same message to Talk:Tenedos also. Tenedos is another article that two editors in question are in dispute. I am concerned about it.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 19:08, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Unless it's violating some specific policy, arbcom remedy, etc., I don't think there's any reason to delete it from the edit histories. -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:50, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

OK. Thanks for your patience.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 20:01, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 20

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited OH-Suppressing Infrared Integral Field Spectrograph, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page First light (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:12, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you!

		The Copyeditor's Barnstar
		Thanks for the barnstar and for all of the work that you do around here. I just examined your list and noticed this glaring omission. —David Levy 01:06, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Hello, from a DR/N volunteer

This is a friendly reminder to involved parties that there is a current Dispute Resolution Noticeboard case still awaiting comments and replies. If this dispute has been resolved to the satisfaction of the filing editor and all involved parties, please take a moment to add a note about this at the discussion so that a volunteer may close the case as "Resolved". If the dispute is still ongoing, please add your input. Guy Macon (talk) 04:47, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

My opinion of there not being anything under actual dispute remains. Enough energy has been wasted by one user's efforts, but I have have responded there as well. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:11, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Decade apostrophe

Could you let us know what the problem was Wikipedia talk:AutoWikiBrowser/Typos#Decade apostrophe? Thanks. Regards, Sun Creator^(talk) 01:27, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Is that the royal us? In any event, continued at the appropriate talk page. -- JHunterJ (talk) 01:39, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. 'us' being people who use AWB to fix typos. Regards, Sun Creator^(talk) 02:08, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I'm one of us. -- JHunterJ (talk) 10:19, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Litmus test (disambiguation)

		The Disambiguator's Barnstar
		Thanks for creating the new Litmus test (disambiguation) page, and working to improve Wikipedia's disambiguation of topics and articles. Northamerica1000(talk) 14:09, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:16, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation tag

Hi, I removed your speedy tag at Ceballos (disambiguation), and "declined" it, because there may be more than three articles in the future. It is a common surname, so more articles might be created. Bearian (talk) 19:36, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

That is not the right approach, otherwise every title would have a "(disambiguation)" page as well, because there may be more than three articles in the future. The correct approach is to wait for the future to bring more articles, recognize the ambiguity, and disambiguate it then. -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:42, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

I have addressed the present. -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:44, 1 October 2012 (UTC)