User talk:JHunterJ/Archive 2

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.

Furonda Brasfield

Why are you restoring unsourced information on this article? At least put "citation needed" tags on it. There are blatant exagerrations, copyright-violating cut-and-pasted text, and outright falsehoods in most of these nominated-for-deletion articles, and without proper sources, neither you nor I (unless you're an expert on Brasfield?) know whether it's true or just plain wrong. You're also encouraging User:Lil Flip246, who is filling these articles (and has already violated 3RR) with sources that don't say anything about the matters they're supposed to be sourcing. wikipediatrix 21:48, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, "citation needed" is a much better approach than simply deleting them while the AfD discussion is going on. Copyvios, OTOH, should be deleted, but the edit summaries did not give me that indication. -- JHunterJ 22:02, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Considering that these articles are about living persons, I found most of the unsourced info worthy of removal rather than tagging: a lot of it is unsourced OR gossip like "she was kicked off the show for being rude and the judges felt her face was too mannish and could not take a decent photo", etc. You've restored quite a bit of this "the judges said" info and "on the show, this happened" info, improperly, I think. wikipediatrix 23:03, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, unsourced negative comments should be deleted, but those weren't the ones I restored. You'd removed too much improperly (also IMO). -- JHunterJ 10:23, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Your earlier note.......

Actually, I used the *e-mail this user* in the toolbox (lower left) to write my note to you. No way would I have sync'ed into using the "+" key. All this is interesting but.......... It reminds me of using a pure text editor or WordStar. Way too much protocol involved for a newbe like myself.

I assume that you are my kinda "mentor" and keeping me from going too close to the edge of the cliff.

When you mention how my note will appear in its own "section", is that like a folder?? How does one see/move/access their various sections? I am a retired aerospace engineer and have used a wide variety of computing systems but this one appears to be very high-level in its structure.

I have been in communications with a very successful author and his name does not appear in the system (Thomas Perry, 15 novels written to date) What does he have to do to get started? Or do I (huge novice) start the page for him? I think I have a wiki url that talks to that. Are most of these author sites started by readers?

Someone....I assume you, dropped a note in My Talk about starting my own page.....wow, what would I talk about? Haha....I have absolutely no desire or need to do so. Besides, I will have to read a gazillion things now as it is. --Ekotkie 03:24, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Mentor? Nah, just a peer who happens to know the basic interface. I only got the '+' thing myself recently; usually I use the "edit this page" to create a new section. You can click on "edit this page" anywhere you see it (even if you don't want to save any changes) to see the mark-up. Sections are set between ==s, like "== Header ==". It's not a folder, more like an outline level (in Word) or heading level (in HTML).

Yes, huge novices get to be bold and create articles, absolutely. Go crib the entry for another author and have at -- I just created William R. Trotter earlier today, if you want to use that. All the articles are started by bold schmucks like us.
-- JHunterJ 04:31, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Echo that re mentors: IMO the nature of WP's community, as tens of thousands independent and low-population conversations rather than a handful or a hundred of active threads, means that ad-lib ad-hoc mentoring (which would bore everyone to death by repetition on most boards and lists) works like gang-busters here. IMO that is one of the sources of our growth rate.
--Jerzy•t 20:48, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

(posted at both User talk:JHunterJ & User talk:Ekotkie:)

Since talk pages are often (mine!) left indecently and dangerously large (in light of old browsers, and, with Google Toolbar, either Firefox or Netscape), editing a whole talk page unnecessarily is a bad habit, even when "+" is unsuitable. I often don't use + for a variety of good and bad reasons, but clicking on the "[edit]" lk to the right of the last hdg on a talk pg is usually no worse than using +, and almost always avoids the whole-page-edit hazards.
--Jerzy•t 20:48, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

User assist

User CovenantD has been bothering other editors the same way you claimed in his talk page.

I wrote him this: From my understanding you were blocked for 6 hours because of your 3RR violations in Clock King, please use the time to think about your actions. You've been a very inconsiderate user. the purpose of wikipedia is to make well sourced informative articles, not un sourced uninformative articles that don't ilustrate the content. If you don't like the topic, go to an article about a topic you like and provide research, tables, infoboxes and images according to guideline. Thank you--The Judge 02:10, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

If you ever need me to rv his rv's or an intervention write me a comment. --The Judge 02:15, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome. Big favor, could you please rv his last rv in the Clock King, the one he was blocked for. Althou he got blocked for his actions, I'm not sure I should personally revert him. --The Judge 04:31, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Scott Johnson

You summarized

→Johnson, K-P - Scott Johnson was going to the hndis page, should be redlinked?

Yes, an LoPbN-tree entry to a Dab always is waiting for someone to fix it, as you did. My only quibbles would be

• to think of it has "should be Dab'd here, even at cost of creating a redlk" (which would have saved me headscratching, and
• that M. Scott Johnson is unusual enuf (compare the way M. Scott Peck probably stands out in you mind for being so widely called that) that it is probably not an acceptable title for the article. Tho there are many non-complying bios like yours probably is, i think most editors would agree that the implicit principle is

  use common names even for bios, and even at the cost of Dab'g with a parenthesized suffix

But good work, even so! Tnx.
--Jerzy•t 20:48, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome. "M. Scott Johnson" is how he's referred to in African American art, List of sculptors, and Culture of Zimbabwe, so it appears to be a wide call as well. And how the Wikipedia:Requested articles/Culture and fine arts request is made (although I don't know when that request was made -- maybe after I edited the list...) -- JHunterJ 21:05, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

And, you can save me some headscratching by writing in full words, like link (instead of lk), heading (hdg), redlink (redlk), thanks (tnx), and section (secn). :-) -- JHunterJ 12:30, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Lovecraft references

What does the footnotes template do, exactly? And is "Footnotes" preferred over "Notes"? I've mostly seen "Notes" myself. Nareek 12:20, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

The footnotes template, when substituted, puts in instructions on how to make references, in a comment (like there was before) and a new scaling template, which starts out at 100%. It can be dropped to 90% to make slightly smaller footnotes, but I didn't do that, since there aren't too many notes on HPL. I like "Notes" heading just fine too, but the previous editor changed "Notes" to "References", so I thought I'd change it to Footnotes since he or she appeared to dislike Notes. -- JHunterJ 12:24, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

template surname

Hi, ok. I just knocked out a list of articles that transcude the Hndis template and are just a single word (i.e. hopefully surnames), there are 1556 of them, though a small % are first names. If you want the list then just let me know. Someone could use, for example, WP:AWB to tag them all correctly. thanks Martin 15:42, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, please. You can use the "Email this user" link, or just create a /namelist page off this one. Thanks! -- JHunterJ 16:02, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

See /names. thanks Martin 18:39, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Melons, etc

Thanks for the category function info. The whole gourd/melon/cucurbit deal needs some serious correction, not even including the various muskmelon variety bits. Thanks again for the heads-up. ENeville 19:36, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

SmackBot

HI, thanks for your note. The new template is "Please check ISBN" which is identical to "invalid isbn". They are invisible because they are directed to the editor, not the reader. They do however add the article to the Category "Articles with invalid ISBNs". Regards Rich Farmbrough, 21:07 8 September 2006 (GMT).

Given name lists

Hi! I saw that you are removing lists of people with a given name from articles on that name. I was wondering if this was based on a policy, or is it something being undertaken following consensus? It seems to me that those lists often serve as a form of disambiguation. If it is based on consensus, can you direct me to where that discussion took place? If it isn't, would you consider holding off on subsequent removals until there's been a chance to discuss pros and cons? Let me know! Jokestress 21:52, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

It (and surnames) were discussed in Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages)#Hndis needs its own Manual; see also Talk:Jennifer. Where needed, {{lookfrom}} could serve the same purpose, but I haven't always added that in. -- JHunterJ 21:56, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I looked through the discussion and I'd say it seems like a pretty radical undertaking based on so few editors commenting. My interest is in preserving usefulness for casual readers. I'd definitely do Lookfrom in each article if you are going to remove so much information. One issue with the lists (taking the Andrea article I watch) is that it's not uncommon for vanity inclusions from IP editors, etc., so I am in basic agreement that the lists aren't that great an idea. However, I would urge you to open this up to a wider discussion to make sure this has a fair hearing. Perhaps a note on the enwiki mailing list? Jokestress 02:29, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not on that mailing list. Could you send a note to it that points out the Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages)#Examples of individual entries that should not be created guidelines (I changed them, but made them slightly *less* restrictive than they used to be) for comment? -- JHunterJ 12:10, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Sent per your request. You can sign up here: http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/ Jokestress 20:40, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Adriano

Adriano is special, it is the list of given name and nickname. At least four famous footballers nickname is Adriano: Adriano Leite Ribeiro, Adriano Correia Claro, Adriano Pereira da Silva, Carlos Adriano de Souza Vieira. Matt86hk talk 12:29, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

But are they referred to in the press by just that name? That is, would an article about Ribeiro leave out the Ribeiro altogether? -- JHunterJ 17:31, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

It's not my discussion but I'll step in. The answer is yes, no one knows what their surnames are. Most footballers/soccer players are referred to by one name only. There is a tendency lately to start using two names to avoid the Adriano-like confusion. But even then, with famous Portuguese player Cristiano Ronaldo trying to avoid confusion with the even more famous Brazilian player Ronaldo, you'll see him often being referred to (in press, on TV) as 'Cristiano' or even 'Ronaldo' when his Brazilian counterpart is not within sight. But his playing name (imprinted on the back of his equipment) is Cristiano Ronaldo and my opinion is that he should not be listed under any other name (except if the playing name is not the same as his birth name, in which case there should be a redirect to the playing name, as in Pelé and Edson Arantes do Nascimento).

PS I had come to your page to just thank you for restoring the links on Blade Runner (disambiguation) - it was my oversight. --maf 10:18, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Sloppy Warmage & Hexblade "Move"

Thanks for directing me to the proper methods of moving a page. I do still think that, as per the rest of the supplemental classes in the class catagory, they should be moved, but I certainly don't want to lose the edit history. Again, thanks. mordicai. 17:55, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

A pleasure. I'll add another note to your page in a bit, on Cat links... -- JHunterJ 18:00, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

mulattos/Eurafricans

I am being stalked by a litter of mulattos all across wikipedia and I want to report it here. They've been talking a whole lot of **** about how they are going to take over and I am doing my best to stop them. Jhunt I would like to enlist your help cause mulattos are ****in persistant ****ers ! MulattosareBlack 23:52, 13 September 2006 (UTC) [Edited by JHunterJ 11:22, 14 September 2006 (UTC)]

Take over what? If you're being stalked, you can follow the same reporting guidelines at no personal attacks; reporting it here won't solve the problem. But the small exchange I saw indicated that both parties are making personal attacks. Please stop. -- JHunterJ 11:22, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

MoS

You're ignoring some points jokestress had, you're ignoring the comments on the mailing list, and furthermore, policy page consensus isn't the 5 people who edit the page. Post a link to your proposed changes on hte villiage pump, the help desk, and see if a consensus emerges. I'm not really against your changes per se, im against policy changes without community involvment. -M^ask 20:20, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I'm ignoring the mailing list, since I'm not on it. Jokestress and I have been communicating and we've got an accord. Please do invite additional comments to the MOS talk page from the places you're familiar with. -- JHunterJ 20:36, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I posted a notice of the discussion at the Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) page here. In addition, I would invite you to join the mailing list, it's considered 'official', and run by the wikimedia foundation, a good many important issues are discussed there that could only benefit from your input. -M^ask 22:02, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

J. Hunter Johnson

I couldn't find the reference to published works that you cite. Please check to see if your autobiography meets Wikipedia:Notability (people), and check Wikipedia:Autobiography as well. Thanks, Tangotango 12:19, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

JHunterJ, I see your point. Thanks for explaining. I've restored the page as it's not a clear-cut case of a non-notable biography; if someone questions the notability of the page again, please direct them to AfD. Cheers, Tangotango 12:54, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Tiamat

Your recent edit to Tiamat (disambiguation) [1] is not actually in keeping with the disambiguation style outlined at Wikipedia:Disambiguation. This style is intended to make it easy for users to quickly scan a list of of target pages, and select the one which they were looking for.

For this reason, I'm going to return that page to its original state, but rest assured that this is not because I dislike the look of the page after your edits. I actually prefer your version in some ways, but it simply isn't consistant with Wikipedia's Disambiguation style which is rather clear. -Harmil 23:15, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I think you mean WP:MOSDAB, not WP:D. The only thing I could find that I didn't follow was keeping the bluelink first, and that guideline is a "try to" -- if it doesn't make sense (Tiamat doesn't refer to Pirates of the Spanish Main, for instance, but rather to a sea monster in it), I would think that the guideline should yield to accurate language. I've restored my changes with the bluelinks first (ugh), and also restored my changes that made it follow the MOS in ways previously violated (link to primary topic, order of entries, sentence fragments). -- JHunterJ 12:11, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Cite News

JHunter, thanks for the tip on "cite news". Took a short bit but it worked out very nicely. I would not have gotten in to trouble if I had understood the editor a bit better. I'm slowly grasping these points and saving the rules. I just moved all my ISBN author data/ and Wiki tips from a 2" to a 3" binder. Have a great day. Ekotkie 17:36, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the welcome Heavenhelllord 18:51, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Link spam on Xiangqi?

Hi. Can I know why did you consider a link to www.kurnik.org on the Xiangqi page as a spam link? Xiangqi is one of the games which you can play on Kurnik. Kurnik is one of the very few places on the net where you can play this game with non-chinese people. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.128.58.194 (talk • contribs) 16:01, 22 September 2006 (UTC).

Because the link appears to be there just to promote www.kurnik.org, which falls under WP:EL#Links normally to be avoided. The comment in the Xiangqi#External links section of the article says "Note: Wikipedia is not a link repository. As such, additional sites to play Xiangqi should not be listed here unless the site adds significantly to the article. Please discuss all additions of such external links at the talk page first. Thank you." -- JHunterJ 16:15, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

1. Can you think of a site to play Xiangqi that when linked there would not appear to be promoting the site? 2. Kurnik was the only site there to play Xiangqi so I don't understand why you say "additional sites to play Xiangqi". 3. I can't find the comment you're referring to.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.128.58.194 (talk • contribs) 17:03, 22 September 2006 (UTC).

All the previous external sites to play Xiangqi were probably deleted for the same reason. No, I can't think of any that would not appear to be promoting the site (which is why they aren't listed, I suppose). -- JHunterJ 17:13, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I can see the comment now but as I wrote earlier - it's irrelevant to this case. Can you please reconsider your decision to remove that link?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.128.58.194 (talk • contribs) 17:06, 22 September 2006 (UTC).

How is "Please discuss all additions of such external links" irrelevant to such an external link? Please discuss the addition of kurnik.org at the talk page first. -- JHunterJ 17:13, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

If you can't think of any site that linked there would not appear to be promoting the site, what's the point of discussing it? Most other games have "Internet servers" sections with links to external sites to play them online. Will you remove them all too?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.128.58.194 (talk • contribs) 18:08, 22 September 2006 (UTC).

Discussing it would get the viewpoints of other editors -- I didn't add that comment to the article, I just read it. You could remove other links in other articles that appear to be counter to WP:EL, sure. -- JHunterJ 18:17, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Welcome message

Thanks for the message. Benceno 23:04, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Regis Philbin

Sorry, I didn't even see the part about a death. I was trying to revert other vandalism in the article. Guess I didn't rv far enough back. Fan-1967 23:19, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Looks like in reverting User:Omgthatkid95's vandalism, I reverted to User:Conor46304's vandalism. Sorry. Fan-1967 23:21, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Re: Smith

Ok, do what you want. Someone else put "high street" in the annotation, it seemed reasonable to me to define what bookstore out of all the millions of bookstores in the world. But when reviewing the term "High Street" and the article on W H Smith I felt that it was the sense the UK's High Streets that was intended. At the bottom of the High Street article I found that there was a phrase that meant exactly that: "high-street chic". If you are going to edit-out "chic" then I feel that you must edit-out "high-street". Best regards. --Charles Gaudette 04:34, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Tofurky/tofurkey

Hey. I wrote a reply to your comment a few days ago but it's on my talk page (User talk:Galaxiaad#Tofurky/tofurkey) so I'm not sure you would have noticed. Sorry! --Galaxiaad 17:00, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Tiamat

This disambig page is a mess. Red links, tons of referances all to the same concept of the D&D Tiamat appearing in other video games as a dragon; these need to be on the Tiamat page.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mrwuggs (talk • contribs) 18:22, 28 September 2006 (UTC).

I disagee. If you think so, though, please discuss on the talk pages for Tiamat and Tiamat (disambiguation) first; it appears that your proposed changes serve primarily to over-emphasize the Tiamat (planet) article. -- JHunterJ 18:25, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. I'm afraid I don't know anything about the subject. A cooling off period is probably a good idea - I've put it on my watchlist... CarolGray 12:11, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Redirects

Wikipedia:Redirect says in bold letters on a separate line:

Most especially, there should never be a need to replace [[redirect]] with [[direct|redirect]].

This does not clearly say that it is better to link to a redirect than pipe using a direct route, but common sense says that "The link may be deliberate, may consolidate related information in one place, or may indicate possible future articles." applies to both cases. --NE2 22:54, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Amy

hndis was closest match I know of, is there some other "name list" tag I am not aware of? Zotel - the Stub Maker 13:44, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Category:Given names lists it. I'm not sure it needs to be in a "list of name lists". -- JHunterJ 13:47, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I would think there should be some tag on it that has boilerplate language. Oh well. Zotel - the Stub Maker 01:03, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

It would probably make sense to make a {{givenname}} template like the {{surname}} one. I hadn't done it because earlier discussion at WP:MOSDAB indicated that people didn't want lists of people by first name, but editors later in the discussion countered that. -- JHunterJ 09:15, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Half-life (disambiguation)

Thanks for putting the link piping back appropriately on the Half-life disambiguation. Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages) and Wikipedia:Disambiguation are far too complex to keep track of in their entirety, but given the general state of disambiguation (just a random example, and the second word I typed into a search: Fowl), I suppose there's plenty of room for improvement.

Some days I just wish we could write a template and be done with it, the way some infoboxes are. Something like:

{{dab header|name=Foo}}

{{dab term|article=Foo (music)|an opera in 4/4 time}}
{{dab term|article=Foo (country)|a self-contained country within the Vatican}}

{{dab context|[[medical science]]}}
{{dab term|article=Foo Bar, PhD (doctor)|what=a famous german doctor.}}
{{dab term|article=Foo (drug)|what=a diet pill}}

{{dab context|Ancient [[alien landing sites]]}}
{{dab term|article=Foo (martians)|what=a corn field in Iowa}}
{{dab term|article=Foo (film)|what=the last film by Foo Bar, PhD}}

{{dab footer}}

That way, all of the style rules could be encoded in the template docs, and we'd never have these back-and-forths again (and the vast majority of disambiguation pages wouldn't be utter crap).

Thanks again for caring about them, and being up on the policy. Howerver, in future if you could give me a chance to read my talk page before you react to messages that others leave there, that would be great ;-) -Harmil 20:43, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Who says I didn't just notice the change on my own? ... OK, OK, you got me. I did let it sit for a short while though (some 90-odd minutes) while I ate lunch. But since I saw more edits that needed to be made than just the pipe link formatting, I figured I'd go ahead and make them. Let me know if you get that dab template going.... :-) -- JHunterJ 20:56, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm... as I work my way down my watchlist, you're showing up on just about every dab page that I was the last editor of... there's only a certain amount of coincidence that seems plausible, here. Some of these edits feel hurried, too (like the typos on Munchkin (disambiguation)[2] Where your edit has made the page less readable by cutting and pasting sentences around. What's more, your edit to some of these pages appears to shoe-horn a specific topic into a lead link when there is no clear priority. If your goal is make a point about how you feel about my edits, your point is taken, and I will attempt to avoid editing articles that you have interacted with.

If you're concerned about the quality of disambiguation pages (as am I), please feel free to peruse Category:Disambiguation as I do from time to time for plenty of examples that you can edit without following me around and making style edits to all of the articles that I do. If we happen to cross paths, that's fine, but specifically tracking down my edits to make a point isn't going to help anyone. -Harmil 21:02, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

What typos on Munchkin (disambiguation)? I wasn't making a point; I was making improvements to articles that seemed likely to have been recently unimproved (even ones that had been edited since your last edits). I don't think that qualifies as stalking, but either way I'm off that list now. I did not do it to try to get you to leave any particular articles alone; I think that's a bad goal. BTW, the lead link goes to the base name article, if there is one. No shoehorning present either. -- JHunterJ 21:12, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Same as others needs explaining

The bladerunner page has a list of Fan Sites http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blade_Runner#External_links

I added a link of a fan site that is a little different than the other fan sites, it's got sounds, music, information about the creators of the movie and the book it was based on and the authors other Sci-Fi books.

So why delete my fan site link?

Thanks!

Geomguy 02:26, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Because of WP:EL and WP:SPAM. Fan sites are on the list of links to avoid, and it looks like it was added to promote your own site. -- JHunterJ 12:10, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for being so inviting! It feels good to be a Wikipedian! Is there anyway I could put a good word in for you? You deserve it. There's some good karma for you.Shadyhomie 22:19, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome. I don't know a "good word" place, other than the thanks you just gave me. Which is quite nice itself! -- JHunterJ 23:03, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

FootnotesSmall

Could you explain the advantages of http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=David_Morgan-Mar&diff=80294168&oldid=80293867] to me? —Ruud 22:29, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Sure. Take a look at Template:Footnotes -- the text you see at the difference is what gets subst'ed for that template. Having comments with instructions for future editors to add references has been identified as a benefit, and the subsequent FootnotesSmall template that remains makes it easy to resize the notes if the list grows long. -- JHunterJ 23:03, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I see two problems: The help text adds a lot of bloat to the article text (imaging replicating this text 1,423,484 times) and there is a general concensus that size reduction should be specified using the CSS class .references-small, and not manually (or in a way that cannot be overriden/changed later in a single place. See the archives at MediaWiki talk:Common.css.) —Ruud 23:14, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

It's not my template. I suppose the talk page for Wikipedia:Footnotes#Helping editors unfamiliar with this system of footnotes would be the place to voice concerns over bloat and resizing. -- JHunterJ 23:19, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject On Emo Music

Hey, I've noticed you contributed to Emo Music talk page, and the article overally looks great. However, tons of wiki pages about bands in any way related to Emo (The Used, FATA, SOTY, Thrice, FFAF, FFTL etc) undergo severe editing in their genre paragraphs, and it becomes malice, when one second the band is Emo, another second it's something else. I've started WikiProject On Emo Music in order to improve those wikipedia articles. If you're interested in participating, please visit the Front Page of the project. Thanks. Iceness 09:50, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Breaking

I noticed your overhaul. Thanks for caring enough to donate your time. However, it was a bit of a hatchet job. I admit, I might have overdone the original. However, I think you might have eliminated a bit more than necessary. Further, you lumped a bunch of stuff together that shouldn't be lumped. Finally, the link to pages starting with breaking goes on to a whole bunch of pages not even starting with breaking. There is a big difference between a line with brief detail about something that comes up in the first 5 or so pages of a breaking wiki search and just the phrase on a page of hundreds of other phrases starting with the term breaking or anything near it in the dictionary. I am pondering reverting and revising. Your comments are welcome. TonyTheTiger 19:31, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't think I eliminated any more than needed for disambiguation. After your revert I at least moved the phrases down, since people looking for them are unlikely to enter just "breaking" in the Go box. As you point out, people can search wikipedia for "breaking" and find things that way if needed. The link to pages starting with Breaking is a link to a list of all Wikipedia pages, starting with the page "Breaking".-- JHunterJ 20:04, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I am a bit curious about your techniques used to move and swap pages. It seems quite a bit of history was lost. At one point the page that was titled breaking was linked directly to the breaking (dancing) page. I then created the breaking (martial arts) page and the breaking (disambiguation) page. I then redirected breaking to the disambiguation page. Your moves have wiped out the old history of the breaking page. Also, procedurally, I think the page now titled breaking should be moved back to breaking (disambiguation) with a redirect. How do you move pages? TonyTheTiger 17:07, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

There's a "move" tab at the top of each page, but that didn't work in this case, because (as you noted) there was an existing article at the destination page. So I proposed a move (see WP:MM) and an admin handled it. A "Title (disambiguation)" page should redirect to the basename "Title" page if one is to point to the other; see WP:D#Page naming conventions. -- JHunterJ 17:23, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

With respect to your format, I think that all the things listed in the section before the sections should be separated as slang refs, phrases using breaking then the other section that appears. What do you think? TonyTheTiger 17:07, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

For my clarification, you mean "Breaking (dancing)", "Breaking (martial arts)", ... through "Thread breaking" should be in a section, that that section should be title "Slang references", and that the Phrases including breaking subsection of See also should be moved above See also? The first group might be placed in their own section, but I'm not sure what that would help; those are the meanings someone typing in "Breaking" and expecting an article would expect to find, so there's no real benefit to moving them down. If they do get a section, it shouldn't be called Slang; those aren't slang terms. The phrases should stay in See also (or, as I would prefer, deleted altogether). From WP:MOSDAB#Examples of individual entries that should not be created: "List other entries of which Title is a part in a "See also" section unless the subject is very frequently referred to simply by the single name." They are unlikely to be sought by people entering just "breaking" in the go box. -- JHunterJ 17:23, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I probably added too many things to this page when I built it. I was just learning wikipedia dab pages and challenging myself to make it as comprehensive as possible. It is written from a google searchers perspective were closely related search terms are expected. Now, I am more wiki experienced. I would probably include many fewer terms if I were redoing it from scratch today. However, since I went through the trouble of finding them, they don't cause any problem. The page you cited essentially don't add them to a dab page, but don't remove them either if I understand it correctly. I am still fiddling around with the format of the page because I don't like seeing such an unbalanced section outline.TonyTheTiger 21:44, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Googling site:en.wikipedia.org intitle:breaking will get much the same list, without the unbalanced section outline. Remember, too, casual Wikipedia users should never see a disambiguation page, so don't fret overmuch on an unbalanced outline. -- JHunterJ 21:54, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Disambiguation Talk Request

This is a form message being sent to all WikiProject Disambiguation participants. I recently left a proposed banner idea on the WikiProject Disambiguation talk page and I would appreciate any input you could provide. Before it can be approved or denied, I would prefer a lot of feedback from multiple participants in the project. So if you have the time please join in the discussion to help improve the WikiProject. Keep up the good work in link repair and thanks for your time.

I see that you just joined the project. Thanks for helping to increase the success of removing bad links. Nehrams2020 22:31, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

List of TLA dab pages

Thanks for your note on my talk page. It's been quite awhile since I've done anything systematic with dab pages or the Wikipedia namespace, but I appreciate your courtesy in letting me know you've expanded a page I began in that topic area. Regards, --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:51, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Unjustified revert on Kevin Smith

The film guy is the best-known Kevin Smith, but he's not the only one. I don't understand why you have a problem with disambiguating him from the editor of Vector (the critical journal of the British Science Fiction Association), etc. Could you please revert your revert? --Orange Mike 23:59, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Please look at Kevin Smith (disambiguation). One person with the name Kevin Smith is more widely known, and has the base name article; that's the naming convention. If there is no "most likely" candidate, then the base name is the disambiguation. -- JHunterJ 00:00, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm good with that. I didn't remember the name of the "more widely known" film guy, and was not aware that there was a disambiguation page already. You have been quite moderate about this whole thing; thank you for your cooperative attitude.--Orange Mike 00:32, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Odin Assemble

JHunterJ - I've tried to add additional details to the Odin Assemble page. Please let me know if you think it is more acceptable.

Odinmetatech 17:54, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

JHunterJ - Odin Assemble has been mentioned by Google (in their Code http://code.google.com/) section, in the Yahoo Developer Gallery area and on many blogs. It is also used by a number of notable "mash-up" development groups such as TRYNT. Unsure if this qualifies or not. (After seeing a few other free/open source PHP frameworks listed I thought it was a valid entry)

Odinmetatech 20:49, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

re Robert Trundle

Well, it's not supposed to affect the process if the subject requests deletion, no. If ht's notable enough to deserve an article, he should have an article. Once it's created it belongs to the Wikipedia and not the article creator. Per WP:BLP we want to be very careful about including any disparaging information about living people, but the article doesn't have any of that. On the other hand we hate to make anyone uncomfortable. But since he's published books etc. his career is hardly a secret. Do you know why he wanted the article removed? Herostratus 13:38, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

He looks like he passes the notability criteria to me... why did he want his article deleted, exactly? --tjstrf 01:05, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

As I understand it, privacy concerns - the facilitation of access to the info that WP provides. -- JHunterJ 10:34, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Tiamat is not a monster

She flat out is not. She gave birth to monsters, but she is a goddess. Please do not revert the clarification of this fact in the first paragraph. Mrwuggs 18:33, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Todd Shipyards

I see you took the disambig-cleanup tag off Todd Shipyards. So do you think an article that starts with a sentence about a NY soccer club, then has a sentence about a Seattle shipyard, and ends with the soccer club stats doesn't need help? Or that it doesn't cover unrelated topics? --J Clear 02:07, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Oops. I've atoned. Todd Shipyards (soccer team), Todd Shipyards, Todd Shipyards (disambiguation) all exist now. Thanks! -- JHunterJ 10:30, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Excellent. I missed that dockyard sentence the first time I read it, too. Wondered why ship articles were linking there. --J Clear 21:15, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

re Robert Trundle

I had to move this to AfD since the PROD was contested. It looks like the article is likely to be kept. I feel that's kind of too bad, but basically my hands were tied; once an article exists, the only consideration on whether the article should be kept or deleted is supposed to the be good of the encyclopedia (subject to the contraints of WP:BLP). Maybe we should give article creators a mulligan, but we don't. If it is kept, the subject may find relief by emailing User:Jimbo Wales with a request for removal. He should point out that, besides wanting the article removed, he's really only marginally notable anyway. It's unlikely but possible that Jimbo will delete the article as a WP:OFFICE action. He's more sympathetic than the average editor to cases like this. Herostratus 17:59, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Everything agreed, except: the PROD was contested? I don't see that in the article history. Nevermind, I see it in the Talk page. -- JHunterJ 18:08, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Disambig cleanups

You are doing some great disambig-cleanup's behind my tags. The new pages are very readable and useful. Its great to be a Wikipedian alongside someone like you. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 20:17, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind words, Hroðulf! You've made my day. -- JHunterJ 20:36, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Why did you revert my changes to Alexander (disambiguation)?

You mentioned "(UTC)" but I don't know what that means (and I looked in W:G and another page for editing acronyms, finding nothing). Please explain.Noroton 21:01, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

UTC. I reverted your edits to Alexander (disambiguation) because they do not help to disambiguate Alexander. Alexander already has a list of people with the name, and the LOPBN project has another, and {{lookfrom|Alexander}} will produce this shortcut to yet another: All pages beginning with Alexander. Adding them to the disambiguation page makes the disambiguation page less useful. -- JHunterJ 21:05, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't disagree with your reversion, Hunter, but I totally fail to see the relevance of Coordinated Universal Time to the topic under discussion.--Orange Mike 21:10, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I introduced it in an edit summary, identifying which version I reverted back to, that's all. -- JHunterJ 21:12, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

JHunterJ, thanks for your reply. I had no idea "Alexander" had that list of names at the bottom. But then why would I or any other reader know that? Why wouldn't a reader first look at "Alexander (disambiguation)" for an Alexander name? I'm more than willing to remove all those names if the end result is, somehow, that the casual reader will, intuitively, be able to get to the right page as quickly and easily as possible. You say "they do not help to disambiguate Alexander" -- meaning my changes weren't useful in doing that, correct? But if I didn't know that list of names was at the bottom of the "Alexander" page, a lot of other readers wouldn't, either. My concern is that someone not familiar with searching through Wikipedia -- someone searching for a name they're not certain of but sure that a last or first name of "Alexander" was in it -- won't find those names. Can we put something like "For a list of surnames and given names, see Alexander" at the top? My original thinking was that someone would intuitively go to the "Alexander (disambiguation)" page, but, especially if they're not familiar with Wikipedia, they might try "Alexander" after all. Another point: You mention several other ways of getting the information, but I see nothing on the disambiguation page pointing to those ways. Wikipedia is meant for the public at large, and it ought to be reader-friendly to the public at large. Is there a way we can quickly, easily point people to the information I put on that page?Noroton 21:39, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

No one unfamiliar with Wikipedia is going to intuitively go to Alexander (disambiguation) without going to Alexander first -- that's the point of have Title and Title (disambiguation). There's a table of contents on the Alexander article, which indicates that people with the name are included. But yes, having the intro paragraph of the disambiguation article say "Alexander is a common male first name and less common surname (and includes people with that name)" or somesuch. I'll let you do so, or I'll do it tomorrow (after the 24-hour window has expired on my other reversions). -- JHunterJ 22:49, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

As you've seen, I've come to agree that as long as there's a link to the Alexander page, then we can take the names out of the Alexander (disambiguation) page. I have three questions I'm trying to wrestle with and I'd be interested in your input.

• First, the Alexander page is an article up top with a list on the bottom. As to the article, it parallels the Wictionary page for "Alexander". Do you agree that the information in Wikipedia should be deleted or drastically summarized with a link to Wictionary's "Alexander"? This would allow for an article ("Alexander") that is clearly a list, intuitive to get to and to understand and use for non-Wikipedians (and Wikipedians as well).
• Second, if we have a list of people at "Alexander" and a list at "Alexander (disambiguation)" then would it be better to merge them? Would "Alexander" be the better article to merge them into?
• Third, the disambiguation pages for personal names are all over the place in style and format. There's "List of people named..." pages, "Name (disambiguation)" pages, "Name" pages that are disambiguation pages and pages named "Name (name)". I'm going to bring this up at the disambiguation style article's talk page, but I'd be interested to know what you think.Noroton 02:18, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

• Well, that's a can of worms there. Check out the discussions Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages)#Hndis needs its own Manual, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allen (surname), and Talk:Jennifer for some of the things I've stepped in before (those are linked from my user page now). I'm all for deleting these links of name lists from pages that aren't titled "List of people with the name X", but mine is a minority opinion.

  But as for your second point, merging Alexander and Alexander (disambiguation) breaks at least one thing: articles shouldn't link to disambiguations, and articles might legitimately link to a page about the name Alexander. -- JHunterJ 02:39, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for cleaning up the Lovejoy disambiguation page that I have been working on. I always enjoy leaning new things about editing here at wikiP. User:ENeville has brought up some questions about the page in general re the MoS. If you have the time could you look at my talk page (I think that I have the whole discussion there) and let us know what you think. If this is beyond your purview my apologies for asking and again thanks for getting the page to a proper spot. MarnetteD | Talk 22:57, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Whoooweee that was a quick reply. Many thanks. Our specific question is in regards to this edit [3] made earlier today. I preferred having everything on the disambig page but ENeville read the MoS a little differently. We are not having an edit war or argument. We are just trying to learn what is best. I keep saying it but thanks for your help. MarnetteD | Talk 23:12, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Lovejoy (disambiguation) looks like an editing clinic. I never even knew about {{surname|yet-another-template}}. ENeville 23:23, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, I only wrested it from {{hndis}} on 7 September 2006. :-) -- JHunterJ 23:27, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Just a quick note to say thanks you for taking the time to work with us both. MarnetteD | Talk 20:16, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

re: Hexblade

So you are saying that Yaksha requested this against consensus? It's a little unclear what you are saying. Should Hexblade (Dungeons & Dragons) have been left as a redirect to Hexblade? If this is not what should be occurring, Yaksha should be politely asked to stop, and someone should make sure he understands what the consensus is. --Aguerriero (talk) 16:27, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Good move, thanks. For now, it's best to assume that Yaksha wasn't aware of the discussion. If he continues to perform those operations after being informed, let me know. --Aguerriero (talk) 17:01, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, pardon my ignorance, but was there ever a more overreaching discussion about the issue than what occurred at Hexblade? It seems like a general consensus was reached on that particular article, but that there is not overall strategy in place for D&D articles. Is there a central location where this discussion can be had? Then you have something wider to back up an action like reverting Yaksha's changes. I have reviewed WP:DAB and it doesn't come right now and say, "Don't disambiguate unless there is a reason to", but it seems like common sense. --Aguerriero (talk) 14:20, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes I moved the page back, as the move request was in bad faith and against consensus. I will post a note to the Talk page about what has occurred. --Aguerriero (talk) 16:11, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

By the way, there is a WikiProject Role-playing Games that might be able to help develop naming standards for those articles, so it's not a debate every time. I posted to the Talk page that you might go there to discuss. Good luck! --Aguerriero (talk) 17:09, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Gypsy disambig page

Hi,

The reason I added Nomad is because I'm trying to fix all the disambig links that lead to Gypsy. Most of the time it is just a vague "gypsy" reference, and no specific race is given. What do you recommend I change those links to? Cfrydj 17:22, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I see. I suppose the Roma people one is the most common, or remove the wikilink if someone has just linked the word because it resulted in a blue link. Or replace it with nomad or nomadic people. Or, if it's acceptable to the "Nomad" editors, add a note on the generic gypsy usage to the introduction of that article. -- JHunterJ 17:27, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

If it's referring to a stock "Gypsy" movie character, etc., I think I'll just refer it to Roma people. Does that sound fair to you? Cfrydj 17:31, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely. -- JHunterJ 17:39, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Website Link

So according to your statement, there is no way I can put my site on the external links? Does that mean I have to have a friend do it or is this not possible in any way?

Thanks,

LineRiders 05:28, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

You can discuss it on the Talk:Line Rider page first. The guidelines for external links lean against fan sites in general though, so the discussion may go either way. -- JHunterJ 12:29, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Apocalyptica

You've been dedicated to the article, so I surmized you must of been a fan, why else would one keep such an eye on the page? This appplies to myself, I am a fan. A bit obsessive is you will, only the first 4 singles/EPs and the Best of Apocalyptica are not within my collection. I've also aquired a small collection of Vitamin Record's String Tribute Albums (including the two Tool Albums). --Dryzen 15:01, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Following the rules (?)

I wanted to get your opinion on something, since I've had contact with you on occasion previously and thought your approach rational. I had made some extensive edits to a de facto disambiguation page, Karen, changes that I felt made it substantially easier for someone who already has in mind a particular meaning of "Karen" to find the associated article. Then someone reverted all my edits, without mentioning anything to me, and indicated in their edit summary that my understanding of the WP:MOSDP was fundamentally misguided. I addressed them on their talk page, and they responded on the article's talk page. I thought that they had reasonable edit goals, even if not all were according to guidelines, but that it would have been much more appropriate to have applied their edits to the work I had done rather than completely revert. I appealed for a third opinion, and the respondent referred to how purely stylistic changes go against established policy. I have never heard of this policy, nor am I clear on how my original edits would merit complete reversion. Is my grasp of policy really so far off as these responses indicate? ENeville 20:00, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Good faith edits don't "merit" complete reversion, but sometimes complete reversion is "warranted". If applying what are viewed as fixes to a good faith edit is more laborious than reverting, reverting might be the way to go. Not saying that's what happened here, but there is the tendency to value one's own contributions based on the effort one put into them, and not on their own -- I know I've done it. As for Karen, I've done what I would have had it been flagged for disambig-cleanup. Adding a link to the Karen (name) article is definitely needed. Breaking so short a list into topical groups is not necessary. ... and thanks for the "rational" note. :-) -- JHunterJ 20:57, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Coincidence

So there I was chatting with User_talk:Sidp about some change or other, and I scroll up and see your username. No, it can't be. But it is. WTF, man. :-) --Squashua 16:20, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

If you're not JD, you'll have to give me another hint. If you are JD, Hey! -- JHunterJ 16:23, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Guessed in one. Total coincidence. --JD 16:26, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Link Removal Prop_Replicas.

Hello sir,

I am trying to find out why the links on the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prop_replica keep getting removed. The links there provide a valuable resource to anyone who collects replica props. In fact many of the discoveries that lead to the production of these replicas have been found at these sites.

I do not want to cause a problem, so I will not revert the page again. I am just looking for an answer as to what is wrong with links that have purpose and are very much apart of replica props.

Thanks!—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 204.13.204.194 (talk • contribs) 17:04, 9 November 2006 (UTC).

Because they appear to be links intended to poromote a site or for commerce. See WP:EL for guidelines on external links, and discuss any additions of external links to the article on its Talk page first. -- JHunterJ 21:46, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Eaton

Hello. You base your wholesale reversions of my edits on WP:MOSDAB and WP:D#Lists, but you selectively apply some parts of those guidelines, while ignoring others.

• You cite the reference in WP:D that states "Lists of articles of which the disambiguated term forms only a part of the article title don't belong here", but you ignore the statement in WP:MOSDAB which states: "However, if you find that another editor has felt the need to create such entries, please do not remove them."

  Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia -- space is not at a premium. The links you have unnecessarily removed are hardly extraneous, are in no way distracting, and are certainly associated with the topic of the page. There is no harm, and much value, in including them on the page. As WP:MOSDAB states, "usefulness to the reader is the principal goal", and there is no indication that including, for example, the USS Eaton is useful, but Eaton Bray is not.

• You also seem to ignore the guideline ("the link should be the first word or phrase in each entry"), when you insist on this awkward wording: "Former name of Eatonia, Saskatchewan, Canada"
• As for the heading "People with the surname Eaton" (and its location), you're absolutely right -- that's what the guideline says. It's nonsensical and unnecessary, and a prime example of when the reference at the end of the guideline ("For every style suggestion above, there's some page which has a good reason to do something else") should arguably come into play. Having said that, the editor who drafted that part of the guideline clearly would disagree with me on this, and I don't have the energy or inclination to seek a change to the guideline. I agree with you, therefore, that it should remain as you edited it.
• You'll have to explain to me why the reference to descendants and to Timothy Eaton after the reference to Eaton family needs to be removed, since a reference to family isn't always understood to mean descendants three generations removed, and adding Timothy Eaton provides clarity (in addition to the indentation).
• Similarly, you'll have to explain why adding Canada to the entry for the Eaton Auditorium is unnecessary, but is okay for Toronto Eaton Centre or Eaton Hall.
• Why have you changed the alphabetical order of the subheadings for places? If you think that there is a more logical order for readers, please explain. Similarly, except for the surnames, as mentioned above, why do you revert the alphabetical order of the other headings?

I hope that helps explain my edits. Skeezix1000 17:09, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

• You quote MOSDAB's note on Title County, Title City, Title Hospital, and Title University as if it applied to all articles with Title in them. It doesn't.
• I chose the "awkward" phrasing to avoid indicating that Canada was formerly known as Eaton (or that Sasketchewan was, as your current wording does).
• There's a long discussion on the MOSDAB talk page explaining the sensibility of distinguishing a list of people who happen to have a particular name from the things that actually need disambiguation. A simple "People" heading should be used for people who are known just as Title, not for people with the surname (or given name) Title.
• Reference to family is simple, but no big deal.
• I don't think it's unnecessary.
• I didn't use the alphabetical list for places because I favored the ordering of places known as Eaton before places only formerly known as Eaton (whose articles aren't Eaton).
• Again, the order of articles isn't to be alphabetical, but by likelihood. Places named Eaton are more likely to be sought through searching for "Eaton" than Eaton Centre shopping malls in Canada.

I'd suggest seeking input from User:Interiot, who tagged the article for cleanup in the first place. -- JHunterJ 18:05, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

WWII

My interest was not in eliminating redirects. My interest was in making sure the article text reads 'World War II'. WHY: 1) World War II is the WP agreed upon name for the war so I think that name should be used in WP articles; 2) As time moves on, how many readers are going to immediately recognize that multiple names/links really are about the same war? To me, it is less confusing to all readers to use a single name for a single war. Hmains 19:03, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

The World War II article itself still uses the well-known abbreviation WWII. WWII isn't a different name, it's just an abbreviation of the same name. Relocating this to Talk:World War II -- JHunterJ 11:43, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Tainted poll?

Hi. Sorry to bother you. You participated in a television episode article naming poll which now lives at this location. Some feel that wording changes have compromised the results of that poll. If you don't mind, could you please take a look at what is there now and add a quick note at WT:TV-NC#Looking for anyone who objects to the last poll to say whether your feelings on the matter remain the same? Of course you can feel free to read over the entirety of both links for more information. Thanks. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:19, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Somaya Reece

You are asking me to cite references. I was simply pointint out that Somaya did not have any references on her page. There is no such thing as "Latino Entertainment TV" and nothing to prove that she is Myspace's #1 Latina. I was simply pointing out that she is "self-proclaimed". Why is she not required to put up proper references? Jessie620 13:27, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

It's not "her" page, it's Wikipedia's article about her, and while she may have been one of the anonymous editors, it's also likely that another editor used the information on her MySpace page as a source. You can neutrally point out lack of sources by adding {{fact}} tags after the claims. -- JHunterJ 13:33, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Hush

Hush someone, it seems to be you, made a big mess of the hush disambiguation page by removing most of the usages of the word. The main shortcomming of wikipedia is officious editing by folk who are unfamiliar with a subject. It is seldom worth making corrections to such edits because they just get reverted. Hence wikipedia continues to get a bad name. 82.47.176.254 19:44, 26 March 2007 (UTC)mikeL

Actually, I removed the big mess that was on the Hush disambiguation page. Disambiguation pages are not meant to cover "usages" of the word, but disambiguation of different articles that might otherwise have the same title. Removing redlinks (non-articles) improves their utility. You could use the Hush Talk page to discuss any proposed corrections to my edits (from back in November) -- discussing the changes first should help keep them from being reverted. -- JHunterJ 20:48, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome

Thanks for noticing my gnome-work. I noticed that disambigs (in general, but particularly for names) tend to accrue lots of random garbage. There's enough that it doesn't actually feel thankless to go through them all (there's something to do every 3rd to 5th page) but it's nice to be appreciated of course. Much of it is quite amusing as well. I'm just at the M's, though, more to do... Cheers. Dina 00:57, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Advocacy

To resolve a dispute I had with another 'pedian, I started an advocacy request with the Wikipedia AMA. In the meantime, we have resolved our dispute. How do I cancel the advocacy request? -- algocu 02:52, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm unfamiliar with AMA processes, but it appears that you could go to your request page, use {{db-author}} to delete it, and the bots that update the linking pages should remove it within a few minutes. -- JHunterJ 09:45, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

• Worked nearly instantly. Thanks! --algocu 12:09, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Name holders

I'm going by the current AfD discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people with the first name Julie. I think it makes perfect sense to avoid unreasonably long disambiguation pages and many many debates around various topics have concluded that any list of the form "famous xxx" is unwelcome. That, in my mind, certainly includes any list of the form "famous people with first name Jonathan". Pascal.Tesson 16:58, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Then I suggest that you wait to go by that discussion only after the AfD is complete. -- JHunterJ 17:00, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I've just reverted back edits on Jonathan and Alan. Time and again AfDs over various subjects have confirmed that "famous people lits" are unencyclopedic, POV in nature. Moreover, for very popular given names, complete lists would be completely unmanageable and artificially create very long pages. In a majority of cases, the link to special:allpages has been preferred and I think it's ok to assume that this is the way to go. Pascal.Tesson 17:13, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Why the rush? Seems rash. I won't revert your edits again, since I agree with your position, but I think you should, just out of good form. Just for my benefit, do you have a pointer to one of the successful, completed AfDs? -- JHunterJ 17:16, 7 April 2007 (UTC)