User talk:JHunterJ/Archive 3

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.

Nexus

You are removing information for the sake of a rule. You insist, although I gave a material reason for restoring the information. -- Joachim Wuttke 16:39, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, yes, I suppose I am removing information, but not for the sake of a rule. Not all information belongs in Wikipedia WP:NOT#IINFO. Disambiguation pages, in particlar, are "non-article pages that contain no content and refer users only to other Wikipedia pages." WP:D. If the topic covered by the external link you are trying to add to Nexus is notable enough to warrant its own Wikipedia article, then that article should be disambiguated from others that might have been known as "Nexus". Until then, it shouldn't (I insist). It's not for the "sake of a rule", it's based on the spirit of the rule. -- JHunterJ 19:04, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

To which of the nine points in WP:NOT#IINFO do you specifically refer?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.212.142.152 (talk • contribs) 13 April 2007 (UTC).

None; I was referring to the section itself, "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information". -- JHunterJ 20:46, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay. You consider my contribution indiscriminate, and your judgement superior to mine. I stop waisting my time, bye. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.212.142.152 (talk) 21:07, 13 April 2007 (UTC).

It's not the contribution that's indiscriminate. You could still create a new article here covering the new Nexus-titled topic, and that new article would then need to be disambiguated from the other Nexus articles. -- JHunterJ 21:14, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Muse

Can I ask why you're so against adding a link to Muse (band) on Muse. They are like one of the most popular britsh bands there is. I'd imagine many people end up there wanting to know about the band. It's not hurting anybody for it to be there, it's done on many other articles like that. :) GrahamGRA 00:44, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't UK-centered. It's not hurting anybody to find them through the dab page, and opening the door to future demands of expansive hatnotes is a good thing to avoid. -- JHunterJ 00:47, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Indentation

Thanks for your comment. I know a lot about wikiformatting, but I was unaware numbered lists could be continued like that. - Mgm|^(talk) 07:49, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi

I just wanted to thank you for your welcome ^^

I work mainly on Catalan Wikipedia, but I'll be wandering around here as well :)

--Meldor 08:10, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

MOS-JA for names

"Macron usage in the name of a modern figure should adhere to the following, in order of preference:

1. Use the official trade name if available in English/Latin alphabet; 2. Use the form found in a dictionary entry from a generally-accepted English dictionary; 3. Use the form publicly used on behalf of the person in the English-speaking world; 4. Use the form publicly used on behalf of the person in any other popular Latin-alphabet-using language (French, Spanish, Italian, Portuguese, German, and Dutch, or variations); or 5. If none of the above is available, use the macronned form."

That leaves us with three options: Itcho Ito, Iccho Ito, and Iccho Itoh.

Ito is now known in English because his death was reported via various press sources around the world. WhisperToMe 15:59, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Apology

Cross-posted from my talk::I'm glad you asked me about this. First, I did remove the warning, since I was clearly incorrect about the usage. Second, normally, yeah, and almost always, I do a level 1. However, given my initial assumption that you were a vandal, a given that you made quite a few edits in a short time period, I think uw-3 was justified. A few weeks ago, I saw a somewhat senior admin "jump" to 3 on what I thought was rather minor abuse, and I asked him about it. He said, "hey, this way they'll stop." To sum, I am incredibly ashamed of my grammatical error, but given the situation, uw3 was probably the way to go. 17:46, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Cross-posted from my talk::The discussion will hold some sway. However, please also see Special:Contributions/58.169.188.195 and User_talk:58.169.188.195. Otheus 12:36, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Welcome

I think I know you. Assuming you are this person, we've worked together before (on various GURPS collaborative projects and playtests). I just wanted to welcome you to the wonderful world of Wikipedia, where everything is collaborative, and you don't even get a free copy of the book when it's finished. :) — Brian (talk) 21:44, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome, Brian. It is I, indeed! You've been here for a while, I see. Where'd you run in to my name as a WP editor? -- JHunterJ 11:51, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I saw a copy edit you did on Demographics of Cameroon and recognized your initials. A lot of my focus here is on Cameroon, so I have a lot of those articles on my watchlist. I've currently got Cameroon up as a Wikipedia:Featured article candidate, where our best articles are identified. If it passes, I guess it's equivalent to getting a submission published in GURPS Whatever. I'm sure we'll run into each other in other areas (Japan-related stuff, for example). Out of curiosity, what led you to the Cameroon page? — Brian (talk) 02:37, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

A Google search on "comprised of" through WP:AWB -- it was one of some 1500 pages that misuse wikt:comprise. I'm about 40% through them. :-) -- JHunterJ 11:32, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

While you're at it, any chance you can correct erroneous instances of "insure", when it's clearly "ensure"? Might be difficult to automate though. Otheus 13:41, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

"insure" can mean to take or give insurance, but it can also mean "ensure", to make sure of, so the usage is more of preference and less of erroneousness. See wikt:WT:RFV#insure, for some examples of that usage, for instance. And you're right, it'd be a bear to automate -- I can be sure that any instance of "comprised of" is wrong/informal, but there'd be no simple Google search to find (hypothetically) offending insures-- JHunterJ 18:09, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Comprises vs. Comprised of

See this link for the following usage note: "The traditional rule states that the whole comprises the parts and the parts compose the whole. In strict usage: The Union comprises 50 states. Fifty states compose (or constitute or make up) the Union. Even though careful writers often maintain this distinction, comprise is increasingly used in place of compose, especially in the passive: The Union is comprised of 50 states. Our surveys show that opposition to this usage is abating. In the 1960s, 53 percent of the Usage Panel found this usage unacceptable; in 1996, only 35 percent objected." You are entitled to spend your time on Wikipedia "cleaning up" non-issues. I would strongly recommend finding more important issues to fry. There is simply no reason to expend your time "correcting" what is now accepted usage. Alansohn 19:22, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia prefers formal language (such as "cannot" instead of "can't"). wikt:comprise identifies the usage being corrected as "informal" (at best). -- JHunterJ 19:27, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Formal, or archaic? If your interest is in removing potentially technically incorrect usage of "is comprised of" which has passed into common usage, a better global edit may have been to substitute "is composed of" which seems both more correct and more easily understood by contemporary English speakers. Jclemens 06:42, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

"The set comprises its elements" is not archaic, easily understood by contemporary English speakers, and no less correct than "The set is composed of its elements. I review the edits before saving them in AWB, and sometimes I override it with "is composed of", "includes", "is made (up) of", or even just "is", when it seems to flow better. I think that, for the typo correction, maintaining the same key word "comprise" was a better replacement than switching to "compose", but I'll bring it up at the typo talk page. -- JHunterJ 10:58, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I stand by my assertion that contemporary English speakers (vs. grammarians) will best understand the "compose" alternative. Despite my having received two humanities graduate degrees, your initial correction struck me as incorrect, and until I followed through to this page, I had no idea that the passive composed-equivalent usage was ever considered incorrect. Consider: A comprises B, where A is singular and B plural, seems to imply that all B together form A. In the usage that you altered on the DartMUD page, that is not the case unless the rest of the context is also altered. Alternatively, A is composed of B does not imply that all B belong in A, just that A only contains B's. Surely, comprehensibility to common folk must remain an important part of all such corrections to meet formal definitions of correctness. Jclemens 18:48, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

You're misreading "A comprises Bs" as "A comprises all Bs", which isn't implied; it implies only that, as you said, A is composed of Bs.

And you're assuming you better represent "common folk" than I do, which may or may not be true. :-) I have only a single degree, and only an undergraduate one at that, but I had learned the differences ascribed to comprise and compose. Gaps in education will always be with us (I've found plenty of my own working with Wikipedia); casting those gaps as therefore archaic, or only of interest to grammarians as opposed to common folk, isn't warranted. But I've posed the question on the typo talk page, to see what other people (who no doubt also consider themselves common folk) think.

On the final hand, your subsequent edit to make it "is composed of" instead of "comprises" on DartMUD is perfectly sound, and what the next step should be on any of the pages that I edited to sound right to me but that still don't sound right to the next editor. -- JHunterJ 19:12, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi JHunterJ -

Apologies for accidenatally removing those links from Happy (disambiguation). Thanks for the heads up. David. MidgleyDJ 20:24, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Muse vandalism

Thanks for reverting my revert. I missed that the change was the ip correcting their earlier change. Rider kabuto 15:33, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

No problem; we were leaving each other notes at the same time, I guess. :-) -- JHunterJ 15:37, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

FYI I've changed the warning I left on User talk:Petraid15 to just a test edits one.

Michael Woodruff

Hi JHunterJ,

I think the featured article should remain unprotected, per WP:NOPRO, right? -- JHunterJ 15:17, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough; thanks for pointing me toward WP:NOPRO. Glad to see the article has already been unprotected. Best wishes, David Kernow (talk) 16:15, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Wien bridge oscillator

Don't know if you have noticed, but an entire section of Wien bridge oscillator has been wiped out by an anonymous user. It might have been an accident or vandalism, not sure, but I doubt it was intentional. Do you have the authority to revert articles? I can't seem to do it. Madhu 15:13, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I undid the edit; if you look at the "history" for an article, you can then "diff" the current version and the previous one, and then "undo" the edit, or at least you should be able to. Cheers! -- JHunterJ 20:43, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

"The Dreamers"

Thanks, J... I'm totally new to this, and will take all the assistance I can get! The sculpture I posted about is well-known in the Huntsville, Texas area - would it be appropriate to add to the Huntsville, Texas Wiki entry? While not as easily noticed as the Sam Houston statue on the south side of the city, this piece of art is very illustrative of the communities deep-rooted commitment to remembering the past and changing the future. Any suggestions and/or assistance you can give me in recognizing this sculpture is much appreciated. (BaylorDad 22:52, 29 April 2007 (UTC))

continued on User talk:BaylorDad#The Dreamers -- JHunterJ 12:21, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Smith

you reverted my edits based on mos:dab, but your synthesis is incorrect. the use of the see also template is appropriate, and since i know you will more than likely not be persuaded by my challenge, why don't we just go right to arbitration? --emerson7 | Talk 01:00, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:MOSDAB says "There may be a "See also" section". I take that to mean there may be a "See also" section. I'm at a loss to cast that as a "synthesis". You are correct in that I am not persuaded, since you've offered no other interpretation of "There may be a "See also" section". If you want to go to arbitration, I suppose you will. Or you could ask on WT:MOSDAB. -- JHunterJ 01:08, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

May 2007

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Smith. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content which gains a consensus among editors. Thank you. -- emerson7 01:47, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Morris. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content which gains a consensus among editors. Thank you. -- emerson7 01:47, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Only User:Emerson7 has violated WP:3RR. Please don't retaliate for valid warnings by issuing invalid ones. -- JHunterJ 02:09, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I went ahead and reverted (for only the second time) Morris again, and placed the explanation on the Talk:Morris page instead of in just the edit summary , as I had before. Please provide some indication as to why you are editing counter to the style guidelines. -- JHunterJ 10:40, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Your message

I've just seen your message at my Talk page, but have to dash. I'll reply tomorrow morning — sorry for any discourtesy, which is unintentional. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 23:16, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd be reluctant to make Grapmophone point to Phonograph, if only because I suspect that many people using it as search term will be looking for the magazine. My concern with the wording was largely because the majority of English-speakers use "gramophone" where North Americans (I don't know about Canadians, so I'm being cautious) use "phonograph". Mind you, I'm not certain that Americans did (or do) use "phonograph", as I've found very many sources that use "gramophone", "phonograph" being archaic even by the 1920s.

According to Sound recording and reproduction and Berliner Gramophone (though they're not absolutely clear), strictly speaking "phonograph" applies to Edison's wax-cyclinder machine, "gramophone" to the later disc-playing machine — Gramophone might be better made a redirect to Sound recording and reproduction. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 08:39, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll agree that the dab should remain if neither the magazine or the phonograph could be called the primary topic, so this is moot: we shouldn't use meanings that require a "strictly speaking" caveat to determine where redirects go. Common usage should prevail. -- JHunterJ 11:03, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Comprised of --> Composed of

Hi JHunterJ,

You recently used AutoWikiBrowser to edit Wikipedia's article on the dinosaur genus Tarchia here, changing "comprised of" to "composed of". However, the original was not an error: "comprised of" means "to include". The original sentence read:

Vickaryous et. al. (2004) state that two distinct clades of Late Cretaceous ankylosaurids are nested deep to Tarchia, one comprised of North American taxa (Ankylosaurus, Euoplocephalus) and the other comprised of Asian taxa (Pinacosaurus spp., Saichania, Tianzhenosaurus, Talarurus).

The original sentence meant that the genera Ankylosaurus and Euoplocephalus are included in one clade, while Pinacosaurus, Saichania, etc, are included in another clade, which is exactly the correct meaning. Changing the wording to "composed of" may indicate to readers that the first clade is composed of (made up of) just two genera, while the second is composed of (made up of) just four genera, which is not the case: other genera are included in both clades.

You can read up on the difference between "composed of" and "comprised of" here. I have changed the wording back to the original, as that version is correct. Best wishes and happy editing, Firsfron of Ronchester 00:27, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

But that link bears out the "composed of" reading, and goes as far as recommending you not use "of" with any form of "comprise". "Comprise" means "to include"; "comprised of" means nothing (or "to include of"). I changed it to "comprising"; "includes" would also work. -- JHunterJ 04:44, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to stick my oar in, but I was here for another reason, and I saw this. "Comprised of" is a common mistake, but nonetheless a mistake; it makes no more sense than "included of". --Mel Etitis (Talk) 08:32, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

The link only states the "most cautious route" is to avoid using "comprised of"; I certainly do not object to "comprising", and thank you for the nice rewording, as long as it's not composed of (which carries a different meaning than what it should mean here). Best wishes and happy editing, Firsfron of Ronchester 05:06, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Why did you merge Curves

I am giving you a heads up, there was no consensus on the merger and I will be reverting the merge. If you can show me different, then I ask you to, but a consensus or a vote should have been taken. I will await your response before reverting. --Maniwar (talk) 14:52, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

The discussion took place on Talk:Curves (disambiguation), with a consensus of three editors expressing preference for the solution implemented, and one for another solution. See WP:MM -- it appears that I have omitted the step of tagging the discussion as closed; will fix. -- JHunterJ 14:56, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, protocol was not followed and therefore it should not have been closed. --Maniwar (talk) 18:00, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

No, the only part of the protocol that wasn't followed was the formal closing after the merge was carried out. The rest of the protocol was handled normally, so it the formal closing should have been carried out (and now has been). -- JHunterJ 18:04, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I applaud your contributions, but when you call for consensus, you have to do an official call and there was not one. There was an unofficial and suggestion to move in some direction, but the official consensus was not called. I've seen where they have the box already in place before it is closed and this one did not. Because there was sort of a stalemate, I called for RFC and I hope that will shed some light. I will go with what a larger community says to do. --Maniwar (talk) 01:36, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

You are mistaken about what one "has to do" to obtain consensus. See Wikipedia:Consensus and, in this case, Wikipedia:Merging and moving pages. There was no stalemate in this case. But the RFC will continue, of course. -- JHunterJ 01:42, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I stand corrected and mis-read your intentions. I will go along with the community, but I don't agree that it should point to the math concept, I made a statement on the articles talk page and stick to it. Anyway, my apologies as you are right, I did not understand Consensus. I was told and shown that it has to be done another way and since you didn't do it like that...of course, you were wrong (smile). But now I see that's not the case. Anyway, we'll see what comes from the RfC. Looks like no one agrees with me. --Maniwar (talk) 01:24, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

P.S. How in the world to I get myself in these controversial topics? I swear I don't look for them, but they seem to find me with no problem. Ha! --Maniwar (talk) 01:25, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Hah! That's easy. The less important the subject, the stauncher the sides will defend their view. I've tripped into other, deeper quagmires that also had no warning signs posted. -- JHunterJ 11:19, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Since I want to follow the community and stay calm, and I think I remember reading that you agreed, would you move the math concept defintion down as a bullet so that no one article takes preference? That actually would be more like other disambig pages. Additionally, this is solution I would rather see [1], and it seems like others would support it. --Maniwar (talk) 12:32, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

It would be more like dabs that do not have "(disambiguation)" in the title; dabs with "(disambiguation)" in the title should lead with the base name meaning as the primary topic. See WP:MOSDAB#Linking to a primary topic. OTOH, if the current Curve were moved to Curve (geometry) or Curve (mathematics) and the disambig page were moved to Curve, then that meaning should become just another bullet in the list, but that second move would require an administrator (which I'm not), and it would need to be proposed and discussed on the Talk:Curve and Talk:Curve (disambiguation) pages. (But given the recent discussion, I think the consensus would end up being to keep the geometry meaning at the base name.) -- JHunterJ 12:49, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

SmackBot

Thanks, fixed. Rich Farmbrough, 17:10 3 May 2007 (GMT).

Hi

I've corrected my incorrect correction of your correction to User:The Transhumanist/Virtual classroom/Dweller, on Featured Article Candidates. Thank you for pointing out my error to me. The Transhumanist    01:45, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

RE: AWB regexps

I added some parentheses to your heavy metal addition to AWB Typo fixes. If you have a $1 in the replacement text, it corresponds to the text captured by the first set of parentheses in the match. AWB's own replacement section has the capability to test your regexps for you, which you should use before adding them to the Typo list, just to be sure they work. Yours at least compiled; some additions (missing a closing parenthesis usually) generate an error when AWB loads them. Cheers! -- JHunterJ 13:07, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! I will probably add more like these in the future. Thanks for the tip! Zouavman Le Zouave _{(Talk to me!)} 13:25, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Alps

Hello... Do you really think things named for the Alps should come before actual Alps ranges? Perhaps I spend too much time working with geographic and surname disambiguation pages, but I've found in the bulk of those pages that the sort of random references such as were at the beginning of the Alps page work better near the end. Was there a particular Alps that I moved that you consider important? Feel free to improve. --Ken Gallager 18:48, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Continued on User Talk:Ken Gallager#Alps

Bob

hi, when you state piping is ok when not the entry itself i assume your referring to this line from WP:MOSDAB: "If a word in the description is linked (an unusual occurrence), you may use piping in that link."

but, considering that Jack (webcomic) is the article users are directed to, that IS the entry itself. i.e. "Do not pipe the name of the links to the articles being listed". here, Jack (webcomic) is the article being listed. its not "a word in the description".

its ambiguous but i'd like to raise it at WP:DAB to clarify. 82.3.64.139 13:38, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

You could, but in this case, the piping is necessary to properly format the title with italics, so either way that discussion pans out wouldn't change this instance. -- JHunterJ 13:39, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

but then it should be Jack (webcomic), not just Jack? 82.3.64.139 13:42, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

oh it is. nevermind. 82.3.64.139 13:43, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

8th Armored

Thanks for the editing!--Lepeu1999 03:06, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Hey, you're welcome! I'm glad to have helped. -- JHunterJ 12:05, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

UNL

About: Undid revision 128823536 by Rjgodoy (talk) dabs are in order of likelihood, not alphabetical. What criteria for "likelihood" do you refer? Rjgodoy 17:58, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

The one used in WP:MOSDAB#Order of entries. In the English Wikipedia, English-language universities would be more likely to be referred to by their initials than Spanish-language universities. -- JHunterJ 18:21, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Presser links

Thanks for your message. Yes, "spam" links are to be avoided, and it looks bad that an editor called "Presser" is adding Presser links. But I have no affiliation with any publisher; I simply wish to ensure that the composers' work is fully documented for our readers. In the case of several of the composers, they have no primary "official site" other than the bio and list of works on the Presser site, which is usually quite well done. Though such sites are ostensibly commercial, they are, as I've described before, also highly informational (music publishing for contemporary art music often having extremely tiny profit margins), and thus do meet our criteria for inclusion. You're doing good things but in this case it's just not helping our readers learn as much as possible about these composers. Badagnani 00:17, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not intended to teach the readers as much as possible, since that would involve including many commercial links. Rather, it is supposed to give encyclopedic coverage of the topics. This coverage can be given without resorting to the commercial links being added. -- JHunterJ 00:49, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Campbell's Soup Cans dab

I see you have edited Campbell's Soup Cans (disambiguation). I spent a great deal of time editing the article so that '''Campbell's Soup Cans''' and Campbell's Soup Cans were used correctly during the WP:FAC process because they are different things. However, several editors including you have revised the dab page. Do you agree with its current format. Should the series of artworks and the single artwork share the same line in the dab page. I guess an analogy would be the original Star Wars and the Star Wars saga. They are different things. How should this be handled in the dab? TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 20:51, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

The artworks don't currently share a line on the dab page. The dab should disambiguate articles that might otherwise share the same title; so far only one work of art has an article (the primary topic), another is mentioned on its museum's page (and got the first bullet in the list), and the subject of the art, the cans themselves, got the second bullet. The edit I made moved the primary topic from the bullet list to the intro paragraph, as specified in WP:MOSDAB. -- JHunterJ 21:48, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Here is my issue. "Campbell's Soup Cans" (with italics) properly refers to the name of the art work and "Campbell's Soup Cans" (without italics) refers to the series. Admittedly, the article is about both the first work and the series. However, does the dab properly account for this spelling nuance. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 16:38, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

"Biting" newbies

Well, I'm going to disagree with your assessment. We only need to assume good faith to the point where it is clear that the user is acting in bad faith. My judgment is this user is clearly acting in bad faith, as their later edits to Teacher shows. Using Wikipedia articles to attack other people is not acceptable. By the way, when you leave a {{welcome}} message its a good idea to sign it. Thanks, Gwernol 12:25, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

If you do feel that it is clear enough to leave a vandalism3, there's still no reason to leave both vandalism2 and vandalism3. And later edits are no indication on what should have been assumed on the earlier ones. -- JHunterJ 12:27, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Bob

Thanks for the cleanup. Why did you delink the songs and Weird Al's album? davidwr ^09f9(talk) 23:32, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

It's a disambiguation page, which means that there should usually be exactly one blue (navigable) link per line. See WP:MOSDAB#Individual entries. -- JHunterJ 23:56, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

AfD on Uncle Tom's Cabin (disambiguation)

I wanted to give you a heads up on the AfD I started for Uncle Tom's Cabin (disambiguation). While I appreciate you creating the disambig page, I don't think we need it for the reasons stated at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Uncle Tom's Cabin (disambiguation). But I wanted you to be aware of this discussion so you could give your view why the article should not be deleted. Best, --Alabamaboy 02:17, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I am surprised, but I've stated my reasons why at the AfD discussion. -- JHunterJ 10:58, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

See my new comments on my talk page and on the AfD. Best,--Alabamaboy 13:52, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Message about external links?

I haven't placed any links... where did I supposedly put links up at? 68.74.121.67 21:08, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind, I see it. I guess you can expect that with Dynamic IP. 68.74.121.67 21:08, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Angel (disambiguation)

Thanks for cleaning up my little mistake! [2] Jouster  (whisper) 13:15, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

My pleasure. Thanks for the cookie! -- JHunterJ 12:46, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Hand (onomastics)

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Hand (onomastics), by Shoeofdeath, another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Hand (onomastics) fits the criteria for speedy deletion for the following reason:

Housekeeping - cleanup per WP:SU

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Hand (onomastics), please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. This bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion, it did not nominate Hand (onomastics) itself. Feel free to leave a message on the bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot. Thanks. --Android Mouse Bot 2 22:02, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

mystery

Hey there, thanks for helping me with the disambiguation page on mystery. Do you have any clue how we can stop the (senseless) reverting of your/my edits? This is getting really annoying. I do not know if you are aware of the RfC on this guy. It doesn't seem to do any good, but maybe you can contribute by posting a reaction there as well and work toward a block. Thanks again! -Catneven 12:22, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I just noticed the RfC last night; it will be a maybe half a day before I can write up a reaction, but I will. -- JHunterJ 12:25, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Just a heads up: I've reported Eep for edit warring at Discover Magazine (TV series), and he's been blocked for 24 hours. I believe the next step to take is to establish that there isn't a consensus for the use of the new Template:Setindexarticle and revert the removals of the dab tags, and perhaps nominate the template at TfD. Dekimasuよ! 12:42, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Re: Undid an AllegroBot edit on English Wikipedia

The robot simply check the wikilinks on a page in one language. If there are some interwiki, than robot follow the pages and put the interwiki back to the first page (if there isn't). In this case (en:PD) the problem was originated from fr wikipedia where the page "PD" has been transformed to a redirect to "Democratic Party" without removing interwikis linking to the page (PD) before making thet operation. How fix the problem? I removed all interwiki linking to "tr:Demokrat Parti" and now is fixed ;) I'm not sure that I've been understood, I understand english better than I talk... u.u anyway, you can found all information here. Regards. --Alleborgo 14:17, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I also added the "tr:Demokrat Parti" interwiki link to the fr:Parti démocrate page. Thanks for the explanation. -- JHunterJ 15:26, 1 June 2007 (UTC)