Jump to content

User talk:JHunterJ/Archive 23

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 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.

Your warning about minor edits.

Hi there, Regarding your warning... For my reference, can you tell me (preferably on my Talk page) which edit you have an issue with? Thanks -- Bill Huston (talk) 02:34, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Continued at User talk:Bhuston#Mis-tagging of non-minor edits as minor

Magnesia alba

The problem with redirecting Magnesia alba to Manganese#History is that, according to that history section, the term "magnesia alba" actually refers to magnesium oxide and not to a manganese compound. If someone is reading a (actually, the one) article that uses the term "magnesia alba" and clicks on the link, they get to an article that is not about the topic they are interested in. A better solution, I think, would be for the magnesium oxide article to include some discussion of the historical terminology as well. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 15:31, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That would then be a better solution, agreed. Until that inclusion, though, linking to Manganese#History better serves the reader, who may not understand why they landed at Magnesium oxide in the absence of the info on the historical terminology. -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:34, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've now edited the intro to magnesium oxide. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 15:37, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

operator (mathematics) -> operator

operator (mathematics) -> operator

I see you reverted my move. I had already fixed >100 links to operator, is it all in vain now? What was your reason? The old title did not stress the fact that this article is about an operator in mathematics, which led many programmers to unintentionally vandalize it, even though there is already operator (programming). So what the hell? — Kallikanzaridtalk 09:47, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The title is not the place to stress that fact, and titles are not given disambiguating phrases just to be consistent with other articles. See WP:RM to find consensus. And WP:CIVIL for talk page messages. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:11, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Look at operator (disambiguation), and also versions of operator before my changes. You will see that we have special operator articles on various meanings, and then there was operator where people attempted to write about operators in mathematics. There was also operation (mathematics). So was the move unjustified? Look at the interwiki, you will see that in most other languages the article is named something like 'operator (mathematics)'. Also consider that dispite the fact that operator was explicitly about operators in mathematics, many pages linked to it in inappropriate contexts. IMO The move was just a sadly overlooked no-brainer. It is only logical that for a word with so many different meanings as operator the article operator should lead to disambiguation page, and not be devoted to a meaning that is rarely used by non-specialists. Why did you revert it? I want to revert it back, but I'm holding up because there might be a good reason not to do it after all. About WP:CIVIL, I'm sufficiently irritated by the lack of responses to my calls for help on these pages and your unexplained revertion that I'm not trying very hard to be civil, sorry. — Kallikanzaridtalk 14:15, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"So many meanings" does not mean that one of the meanings isn't primary. Regardless, a WP:RM is needed; if there is to be a change to no primary topic, then the disambiguation page will need to be moved to the base name. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:36, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Peer review nomination of Cliburn

Peer review nomination of Cliburn

Hello JHunterJ, I have nominated Cliburn for a peer review to help improve it further. I am notifying you as you as you created Cliburn (surname) and I just thought you might be interested. For the Peer review, see Wikipedia:Peer review/Cliburn/archive1, you may also find the talk page useful, Thankyou and good luck. Crouch, Swale talk to me My contribs 16:27, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Waivers

Waivers

Qui tacet consentire videtur? Do we have "consensus" on this yet, or is an RM required? Smartiger (talk) 17:04, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

continued at Talk:Waivers#Requested move

Changeling

Changeling

I've been told there doesn't have to be a Wikipedia article to put it on the disambiguation page.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 18:20, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You were misinformed.[1] See WP:D and WP:MOSDAB; MOS:DABMENTION covers topics that are mentioned in other articles, but no articles (yet) mention the Changeling Betwixt topic. -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:36, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, yes they do. See my recent contributions. I hope the sources I use qualify.
I did check the talk page of the person who misinformed me, and apparently he/she gets lots of warnings. I was fairly certain I was right to begin with. I may have to go back and fix some things.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 18:56, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oops. I got to wondering why Amy Sherman-Palladino's connection to that show had never been mentioned. Turns out the "reliable" source I found got confused when another of the network's pilots--actually by Amy--wasn't picked up.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 21:35, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Moving operator

The support to moving operator has been overwhelming, but I still have doubts about the name itself and how to set up the system of articles that will reflect the topics of operator and operation the best. Can you suggest a good way to bootstrap the discussion, please? Any other advice on how to proceed is welcome, too — Kallikanzaridtalk 10:28, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Solicit input at the math project talk page? We can try an RFC too, but that's normally for dispute resolution. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:05, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Will you help us wrap things up at Talk:Okanagan (wine)?

We seem to be really close to a compromise solution, after many days of discussion, and would greatly appreciate if you would chime in with your thoughts on whether the wording that tries to incorporate both views about the Okanagan extension of the Sonoran is acceptable or not. See Talk:Okanagan_Valley_(wine_region)#Polling is evil but so is 90,000+ bytes dedicated to one issue. Thanks for your time! AgneCheese/Wine 22:03, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back!

Welcome back to WikiProject Anthroponymy!
Come check out our new layout.
Wikipedia ad for Wikipedia:WikiProject Anthroponymy
Wikipedia adsfile info – #226

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Anthroponymy at 07:05, 26 January 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Hillary Clinton

Thanks for fixing my regex. Colonies Chris (talk) 11:22, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:APO

Hello JHunterJ, I noticed edits performed on Cullen (surname) and I noticed that you are an administrator. It seems that everybody has their own way of formatting a Name article so I've been trying to build out the standards section: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Anthroponymy/Standards. Although related to DABs I believe that WP:APO articles are a distinct beast. Thoughts? --Hutcher (talk) 05:48, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, you are a bit of a bull in a china shop over at the Standards page. My TOC is broken because many of my {{Anchor}} templates have been removed. If you are unfamiliar with anchors please don't remove them. A little discussion about wholesale, breaking changes would be nice: "Find consensus" Wikipedia:Civility --Hutcher (talk) 18:09, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Concerning substantive changes to the standard for stubs: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Anthroponymy/Standards#Stub_opening_sentence.28s.29--Hutcher (talk) 18:43, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Dude", the TOC wasn't broken when I replaced "your" Anchor templates with spans. Did you even try to use the TOC under that version? If you did have an actual problem, it may be useful to note the browser and version over at Template talk:Anchor/doc#Help!, where the version I used was discussed, and which perhaps you are unfamiliar with. And yes, please use civility rather than inviting collaboration and then terming it "bull in a china shop". Perhaps you should start "your" next standards (that do not yet have consensus) in your user space? -- JHunterJ (talk) 21:10, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Help with redirect

I am trying to have the Dayton–Springfield–Greenville Combined Statistical Area page redirect to the Dayton metropolitan area page. I attempted to make that happen, but I have not been about to figure out how I did it wrong. I already merged the CSA article into the Dayton metropolitan area article and made a section for it. The CSA page for most cities in the US redirect straight to the metropolitan area page. For example, Detroit-Warren-Flint, MI CSA, Pittsburgh-New Castle, PA CSA, and Columbus-Marion-Chillicothe, OH CSA (just to name a few) all redirect to the metropolitan area page for that city. It will usually include a section about the CSA in the MSA page. That is what I have attemted to do. I want to ask that you correct my redirection so that the Dayton CSA page and redirect sraight to the MSA page. Thank you in advance! Texas141 (talk) 17:44, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind! I figured it out. LOL! Texas141 (talk) 17:48, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Feb 2011 Newsletter

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Anthroponymy at 06:34, 2 February 2011 (UTC).[reply]

disamb. robot

Hello, I'd like to let you know, that there is no English release title for the film Endhiran. Hindi and Telugu dubbings were titled "Robot" and "Robo" respectively. The Tamil original got the title Endhiran in big Tamil letters and in very small roman letters "the Robot". "The Robot" alone is not out there. Until the English film comes out I suggest to let the viewers know, that it is only a translation, not an actual film title. Cheers. --Wangond (talk) 18:04, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's possible that the redirect The Robot (film) would need to be deleted then. -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:56, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It has no function. So I agree, and the link to the article maybe given in this format: Endhiran ta:, translated as "the Robot", description..
does this look acceptable to you? --Wangond (talk) 19:16, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
For the disambiguation page on the title "Robot", we should use a title that reflects that the reader looking for this film is expecting a title of "Robot". Some or all of these may be erroneous, but we have available: best choices: The Robot (film), Robot (film); next best: Robot (hindi film), Robot (Rajini); third best: Endhiran: The Robot, Enthiran - The Robot. There are a few others as well. Some or all of them might be deleted through a WP:RfD discussion. Which if any are correct and remain would drive which we use on the disambiguation page. If none of them are correct, perhaps the film isn't ambiguous with "robot" at all and shouldn't be on the disambiguation page. If it is ambiguous but none of the matching redirects remain, we could use Endhiran or The Robot, a Tamil film (again, because the reader has reached the disambiguation page looking for something that is ambiguous with "Robot"). -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:40, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
All redirects you listed look nonsense to me. 1st one is just an inexistant topic as of now. 2nd and 3rd belongs into Hindi wikipedia as it is a dubbed version in their language. 4th maybe termed as creative nonsense by Rajnifans. All these may be deleted. Endhiran: The Robot is inaccurate, since Enthiran is not a name, but the Tamil word for Robot. Enthiran - The Robot has somehow a similar problem. Enthiran or the Robot looks fine and it seems to be in the spirit of the film's logo. I will make this change. --Wangond (talk) 21:18, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, not quite what I meant. If the redirects are nonsense, first they should be deleted via WP:RfD. After they're deleted, then they should no longer be used on the matching disambiguation page. Also, if they are nonsense, then it seems like the Tamil film is not actually ambiguous with the title "Robot"? -- JHunterJ (talk) 22:11, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've tried to open a case, but i wasn't able to find something like a template for easy reporting. Nonsense was too harsh. Let's say impractical. Could you open the RfD case or atleast show me a proper way to do this? I'm not an experienced user yet. Cheers.--Wangond (talk) 22:43, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's a two-step. Put {{rfd}} at the top of each redirect pages that is impractical (you can see a list of all of the redirects here). Then go to WP:RFD#HOWTO, where they have a clickable "here" link to the current day's RfDs. Click that and add
{{subst:rfd2|redirect=Robot (film)|target=Enthiran}}
{{subst:rfd2m|redirect=The Robot (film)|target=Enthiran}}
...
{{subst:rfd2m|redirect=Robot hindi|target=Enthiran|text=Deletion because (reason)}}
Use rfd2m for each of the additional ones beyond the first. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:34, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
thank you.--Wangond (talk) 15:51, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template deletions

Hey JHunterJ, I was wondering if you could help me fight a proposed deletion of a number of hatnotes used in the WP:APO standards doc: Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2011_February_3#Template:Aboutgivenname_.26_others. Thanks in advance!--Hutcher (talk) 01:29, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Psilopsida

In standardizing the style of this disambiguation page, you've actually perpetuated the inaccuracy present in the Psilotopsida article: they aren't "fern-like", in recent classifications, they are ferns. I should have added a note to the talk page to say that sorting out these articles isn't yet finished, which is why I had more information on this page than would have been there in the end, as I did know that disambiguation pages shouldn't be used in this way... Peter coxhead (talk) 23:25, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Right, disambiguation pages don't introduce content, they just copy content from the articles. The articles should be fixed (with consensus, verifiability, notability, etc.) first, and then the disambiguation pages updated. -- JHunterJ (talk) 00:45, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:

I figured promoting a MOS: over WP:MOS prefix when it existed made sense. The wp/mos shortcuts in the MOS as a whole are, to be honest, a mess due to a whole lot of legacy shortcuts. Circéus (talk) 21:48, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of current UFC fighters

Thank you for your numerous minor edits on this page, these edits were very helpful in maintaining the quality of the site. I'm not sure why you deleted the UFC article link as this is part of a series or articles to which that is the center point. If there is some very distinct, common stylist issue here, such as wikipedia asks lists not to link to articles in the see also section or something similar, that is fine, otherwise I would like to leave that link on the page. Thanks again for your help.Thaddeus Venture (talk) 05:46, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. The "See also" section is for directing readers to other, similar articles that aren't linked in the body text. Since Ultimate Fighting Championship is the very first link in the article text, there's no need to also include it in the "See also" section. "Links already integrated into the body of the text are generally not repeated in a "See also" section" -- WP:SEEALSO. Cheers! -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:22, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Passions

Not so sure about the recent move of Passions to Passions (TV series) ... the plural seems to make it unique, and Passions is now redirected to the 100 uses of "Passion" ... and the soap article was doing fine on its own since 2005 ;) — TAnthonyTalk 06:47, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Restored as contested. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:45, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stade de France hatnote

Hey, in June 2010, we discussed an issue involving a hat-note on the Stade de France. Once I was informed of WP guidelines for hat-notes by yourself, I relented. Recently, there has been a user, Vertiwiki, who has a problem with the hat-note being there. After being informed of the talk page discussion, the user hasn't given up his agenda to get rid of the hat-note. He subsequently resorted to sock-puppetry in order to get rid of it and ended up being reprimanded for it. The user still hasn't given up and has resorted to using IPs (until his 31-hour ban is up) now to get his nonsensical point across. Just coming here to get your advice on how to go about this. I don't want to go to another admin because they might get this confused as an edit war when the issue has already been resolved except this user refused to accept that it is. Since you have already dealt with this issue, it should be easier to handle for you I assume. Thanks. Later. — Joao10Siamun (talk) 20:28, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've responded and re-added the page to my watchlist. Thanks for the pointer! -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:40, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation of films

I'm not much involved with that subject, but I know that country of origin is often ambiguous while the name of the film's director is not. Very rarely does a director make two films in the same year with the same name. --Ring Cinema (talk) 19:53, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not much involved with the subject either, just in disambiguation. My goal for adding input was to make sure primary topics continue to be recognized. -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:54, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Surreality

you know you are a dick right?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.215.179.205 (talk • contribs) 19:14, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. I assume you are here to thank me for collaborating here. Also, you misspelled "I am". -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:31, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pereira

[2] Per WP:CITE, it is inappropriate to convert citations, and that includes adding citation templates to an article that doesn't have them. Thank you. Gimmetoo (talk) 19:58, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't get involved in this edit war if I were you. Gimmetoo (talk) 03:12, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Then please don't. -- JHunterJ (talk) 03:14, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The FN issue is different than the template issue, and in this case, there is yet another issue at play. Gimmetoo (talk) 03:18, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And being handled separately. But "I wouldn't if I were you" isn't going to advance the issue any. -- JHunterJ (talk) 03:20, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You probably don't want to be involved with WP:HA, that's all. Gimmetoo (talk) 03:32, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, I don't want to be harassed. But I still try to improve Wikipedia despite it. -- JHunterJ (talk) 03:42, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Um, are you alleging that I'm harassing you? If so, I'm done here. I've started WT:Citing_sources#RFC:_WP:REFPUNC_and_parentheses. Gimmetoo (talk) 03:54, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Um, were you alleging that I was harassing you? It was just as nonsensical. -- JHunterJ (talk) 03:56, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, I was not alleging that you were. Quite the contrary - I was suggesting that you might not want to support a third editor who did appear to be. Gimmetoo (talk) 04:00, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It has been hard to contextualize some of the short notes here. If Tinton5 has been harassing you or pages you watch, he or she might still be right about the ref punc. -- JHunterJ (talk) 04:03, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose anything is possible, but I do know a bit about the CITE and FN pages. Gimmetoo (talk) 04:10, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Anything is definitely possible and if you call "correcting an editor who misinterprets guidelines and disrupts the edit process" harassing, then you don't know what harassing really is. Harassing involves an editor making personal attacks. I have every right to edit the same pages you do. Furthermore, I am editing these pages the right way. Tinton5 (talk) 04:13, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, kinda random but just hear me out.

Hi, I noticed you reverted Mr. Gimmetoo on the Kevin Pereira page. I have been trying to tell this user that the punctuation comes first, then the citation tag. If you look at our edit history pages, you will see that he has made these changes to the Jennifer Lopez page, as well as others. Thank you for justifying this. Tinton5 (talk) 03:22, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Right, per WP:FN, the citation can go inside the parens if it applies to only one part of the parenthetical. Since this citation applies to the whole thing, it goes outside the punctuation as normal. -- JHunterJ (talk) 03:23, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[ec] It can go inside or outside, and per standard principles, you are not to edit-war over issues of style. Gimmetoo (talk) 03:27, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It goes outside per WP:FN. What contrary standard principle are you referring to? -- JHunterJ (talk) 03:28, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:ENGVAR, WP:CITEVAR, and the general principle WP:STABILITY. Gimmetoo (talk) 03:30, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
None of those indicate that the reference should be incorrectly placed inside the parentheses when the reference applies to the entire parenthetical. -- JHunterJ (talk) 03:32, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You have not established that anything was "incorrect". For years, WP:CITE has been understood to allow cites inside parens. Gimmetoo (talk) 03:39, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WP:FN established it, saving me the trouble: ""When a reference tag coincides with punctuation, the tag is placed immediately after the punctuation. [Exception: ] where a reference applies to a specific term within a parenthetical phrase, rather than the entirety of that phrase, the tag may be placed within the closing parenthesis if appropriate." -- JHunterJ (talk) 03:40, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than just repeat everything here and elsewhere, pick one spot. Gimmetoo (talk) 03:43, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy to respond to notes here on my Talk page and to raise article-specific points on article Talk pages. -- JHunterJ (talk) 03:44, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:APO template deletions

Hey guys, a couple of templates used by WP:APO have been nominated for deletion. We could use your help to Oppose their deletion. If you agree the project needs them, as per WPAPO:HN then please vote Oppose here: Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion#Template:Aboutgivenname

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Anthroponymy at 04:05, 24 February 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Page move oddity

Hi. I'm not usually quite this dense, but I can't figure out what's going on with the talk page for American bison. It looks as if the article was moved to American Bison (capital B) several years ago and then back to American bison (small b) recently, but all the talk page content is still at Talk:American Bison. Talk:American bison had no substantive content before it was blanked as a redirect, which it doesn't seem to be. Should I request speedy deletion of Talk:American bison as G6 to enable moving Talk:American Bison or what? I've been staring at the page logs for the past 15 minutes and am confused enough to be afraid of screwing things up even worse. Advice would be much appreciated when you have a moment (I'll be off-wiki for some hours). Rivertorch (talk) 08:36, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I moved it. The move of the main page on Feb 7 should have carried the Talk page with it, but since the blank Talk page existed, it needed to be done separately and wasn't. Cheers! -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:36, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I thought it must be something like that. Thank you! Rivertorch (talk) 16:44, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

names

Help me here. I looked through the Jonathan articles. The one I added the names to has other "Jonathans", of similar ilk. You did not delete those names. And no article other than the one that you deleted the names I added from had a list which reflected not only the name, but the person's country and reason for being notable. What am I missing? The way you left it seems inconsistent -- did you just not see the other Jonathans that were of similar type? And if so, are you suggesting that what you deleted can properly be added to the Jonathan (given name) page? You can respond here. Tx.--Epeefleche (talk) 15:47, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If there are others that also are not ambiguous, you can remove those as well. -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:52, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Did you just not see the other Jonathans that were of similar type? And if so, are you suggesting that what you deleted can properly be added to the Jonathan (given name) page?--Epeefleche (talk) 20:13, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I suggested (a) that others of similar type can also be deleted. Another suggestion is (b) that name holders who are not known by the single-name (i.e., are not ambiguous with the ambiguous title) might be listed on the anthroponymy list article. Sometimes the anthroponymy article consensus for very common names is that no such list is useful there; Talk:Jonathan (name) seems to be in that camp. In that case, a separate article List of persons named Jonathan could be created -- and possibly be nominated for deletion if it's not encyclopedic. -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:50, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:APO March Newsletter

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Anthroponymy at 09:45, 3 March 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Game designers

Thanks for your recent help in sourcing some of the game designer pages that are up for deletion. If you have the time, other articles similarly in need of sourcing include Marcelo Del Debbio, Paul Drye, Joseph Goodman (was redirected, but could be restored if sources are found), Geoffrey C. Grabowski, Rob Heinsoo, Gary Holian, ‎Christopher Kubasik, Scott Leaton, Chris Wiese, Ken Lightner, and Clinton R. Nixon. 129.33.19.254 (talk) 13:53, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stade de France hatnote......again

Apparently, after a full month of protection, Vertiwiki still hasn't gotten over the hat-note, which simply amazes me. Just letting you know that the user is back around. The Internet must be serious business to this user. Later. — –J10S Talk 23:06, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Protection re-applied. (I am watching the page too, but it's good to have multiple alarms go off.) -- JHunterJ (talk) 00:33, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AWB

The bot destroyed the formatting on this page: English-language editions of The Hobbit. Strebe (talk) 20:03, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's because that page didn't use wikiformatting. Fixed now. -- JHunterJ (talk) 21:51, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Service award level

There has been a major revision of the the Service Awards: the edit requirements for the higher levels have been greatly reduced, to make them reasonably attainable.

Because of this, your Service Award level has been changed, and you are now eligible for a higher level. I have taken the liberty of updating your award on your user page.

Herostratus (talk) 07:48, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fairway

I tried to reinsert the navigational meaning in fairway. It is not mentioned in Channel (geography), but in Wiktionary fairway is defined (among other meanings) as

  • (nautical) a navigable channel in a harbour, offshore etc; the usual course taken by vessels in such places.

Channel (geography) describes this meaning (although the word is not mentioned) and the article is iw-linked to the articles on this subject on a number of other wikipedias. I have suggested cleaning and breaking up that article, but as things are now, I think there should be a link to it in fairway.

I would prefer not editing the article myself as I have no reliable sources handy and I am not confident about the nuances of the terms in English.

--LPfi (talk) 06:44, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not Wiktionary, though, and disambiguation pages do not need to list all of the uses of a word. Disambiguation pages disambiguate Wikipedia articles that might have have the same title. Since Channel (geography) does not mention "fairway", it could not have had that title. You can solicit other editors who watch the page at Talk:Channel (geography) to add that information to the article if you think it is ambiguous on Wikipedia. -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:42, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot say I agree, but I leave this to regular enwiki editors. I left a note on the Channel (geography) talk page. --LPfi (talk) 08:59, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

LexisNexis

Please don't revert the LexisNexis page. The material I deleted is uncited, and I am challenging it as untrue. If it is true, it should be easy to find citations to support it. If you find such citations, I encourage you to add them to support the contentious material.

Thanks, Fleetham (talk) 01:15, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And if you remove material, even as a challenge, please do not mark the removal as a minor edit. I did not add the material,[3] and it looks like that another editor has found the references sought[4] (which is why we use the unreferenced tag, to show that references are being sought). If you had a reason to believe that the material was being added in bad gaith, I would encourage you to use the Talk page rather than repeated removing material in undos of multiple editors, but without that reason, please assume the addition was in good faith. Thanks. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:04, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bundling citations

The citation fixes I made are per WP:CITEBUNDLE. Bundling, WP:CITEBUNDLE says, "avoids the visual clutter of multiple clickable footnotes inside a sentence or paragraph".

It's not that multiple footnotes inside a sentence are unacceptable (in fact look at almost any of the pages linked from my user page, and you'll see I use them too), but when they can be avoided it's best to avoid them.

Cheers, Fleetham (talk) 16:31, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I like the other way better, but this helps me understand the issue. -- JHunterJ (talk) 10:52, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JHunterJ/Archive_23&oldid=1138276624"