User talk:JHunterJ/Archive 29: Difference between revisions

< User talk:JHunterJ Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 22:27, 2 December 2012 editApteva (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users12,591 edits →Close ← Previous edit		Revision as of 22:34, 2 December 2012 edit undoJHunterJ (talk \| contribs)Administrators105,776 edits →Close: pleaseNext edit →
Line 170:		Line 170:
	:No, and stop being disruptive. As you already know, Misplaced Pages consensus style is to use an endash. You are disruptively using the wrong venues to call attention to it or to "fix" what you perceive to be an error. -- ] (]) 21:42, 2 December 2012 (UTC)		:No, and stop being disruptive. As you already know, Misplaced Pages consensus style is to use an endash. You are disruptively using the wrong venues to call attention to it or to "fix" what you perceive to be an error. -- ] (]) 21:42, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
	::What exactly do you consider the "right venues"? Please see my proposal. It is never disruptive to make proposals such as opening RM's or RfC's. Let them go a week/month and see if anyone agrees, and let someone else do the close. Please. ] (]) 22:27, 2 December 2012 (UTC)		::What exactly do you consider the "right venues"? Please see my proposal. It is never disruptive to make proposals such as opening RM's or RfC's. Let them go a week/month and see if anyone agrees, and let someone else do the close. Please. ] (]) 22:27, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
			:::], or follow ]. Yes, it is sometimes disruptive. Let the RFC/U and AN/I finish. Please. -- ] (]) 22:34, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Revision as of 22:34, 2 December 2012

This is the talk page for talking to, with or about me - JHunterJ

Please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~). Place comments that start a new topic at the bottom of the page. The easiest way to do this is by clicking the on the navigation bar above.

Please respect

Talk page guidelines & Wikiquette

I will reply here unless you ask me to reply somewhere else.

RPG BLPs (part 2)

A little progress was made on Ari Marmell today: BOZ (talk) 14:00, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Hey J, just checking in. I'm just wondering if you've been busy, or if you've lost interest in this project. Just let me know. BOZ (talk) 15:02, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm taking the lack of response to mean that you're busy; no worries and no rush, just get to it when you can - the 'pedia will be here for a good long time and none of these are emergency cases. Thanks for all you have done so far! :) BOZ (talk) 18:54, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Great work on Allen Varney! As usual, when you get them, you get them well. :) BOZ (talk) 23:19, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi J, got anything new for these guys? :) BOZ (talk) 13:05, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

21

I thought there was a general consensus against nn (disambiguation) pages, after 8 and 9 were created against a clear consensus, but never really fixed. It appears I was wrong. Sorry, although "clean up" is still not appropriate. "Move to 21 (disambiguation)" or "Already in 21 (disambiguation)" would have made it clear what you were doing. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:00, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, although full revert of the improvement was not appropriate, even if it wasn't clear to you why it was being cleaned up. 21 (number) has been tagged for excessive examples since March 2010, and the hatnote for the disambiguation page has been there since February 2011. -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:22, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Moving RP to Randomized polynomial time

I don't really think RP_(complexity) should have been moved to Randomized polynomial time. All the other complexity classes are named by their common name, like RP, NP, PSPACE or AC0. Their common name is the initialism. Most research papers on complexity classes won't even spell out the full name of the class. (Same objection to moving RL, of course.) --Robin (talk) 19:13, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

I assumed the full name was also commonly used, although not as commonly as RP, and applied WP:PRECISION: "If it exists, choose an alternative name that the subject is also commonly called in English, albeit, not as commonly as the preferred but ambiguous title." Since it's not commonly used (and I'll take your word for it), I'll revert my moves. -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:40, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I guess a case could be made using WP:PRECISION that we should rename articles on complexity classes to their full names. Since some full names are very obscure, this would may have to be decided on a case-by-case basis. For now it's probably easiest to maintain consistency with the other articles and just name them with the more common initialism with parenthetical disambiguation. --Robin (talk) 15:52, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Durham-UNH

Hey, just wanted to let you know I moved Durham–UNH back to Durham-UNH (Amtrak station). Transit system station names are a weird exception to WP:PRECISION. Because station names are usually based on a) a town/city, b) a street, or c) a landmark, they almost always need to be disambiguated. Most systems, including Amtrak, use the parenthetical on all stations to make linking easier; even those like New London Union Station where it's unambiguous have New London (Amtrak station) as a redirect.

Cheers, Pi.1415926535 (talk) 21:13, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

They aren't an exception to WP:PRECISION. If almost all of them need qualifiers, then almost all of them should get qualifiers. The ones, however few they are, that do not need qualifiers should not get qualifiers. Right, redirects (like the one I left) make the links just as easy. -- JHunterJ (talk) 22:41, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Lowbidgee Floodplain

Hi JHunterJ – I have reverted your latest edit to Lowbidgee Floodplain as you seem to be unaware of the scope of the Birds Project, which covers not only taxon articles but many others concerning birds. The article does come within the scope of the project as it is an article about an Important Bird Area (IBA), and thus about bird conservation, and its capitalisation of bird names reflects this. It is an ornithological article – in the sense of being a scientific article about birds – as the methodology used in identifying IBAs is scientific. If you have objections to the use of the bird project convention on capitalisation of bird names on articles other than bird taxa, then please take it up on the Bird Project talk page. Thanks. Maias (talk) 11:31, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

No, it's not that. You seem to be unaware of the broader consensus on capitalization. "Coming within the scope of" is not the same as "is an ornithology article" as described in WP:FAUNA: that is, an article about a bird. I am already discussing (again) the problems with some Birds Project members' interpretation of their essay as overriding the broader consensus at Misplaced Pages talk:Naming conventions (capitalization). You are welcome to join there. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:30, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Talk pages

This edit struck me as very odd: 14:13, 17 October 2012‎ JHunterJ (talk | contribs)‎ . . (497,596 bytes) (+439)‎ . . (Undid revision 518317649 by Apteva (talk) do not remove other users' contributions) (rollback: 1 edit | undo)

Since when is it appropriate to use a guideline talk page to make a link to an AE discussion? Talk pages are only for discussing the content of the page, not the conduct of an editor. How in any stretch of the imagination is Dicklyon's post appropriate there? Do we post ANI notices on all of the talk pages? No, only on the user talk page. Apteva (talk) 14:49, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Stop. If needed, allow (or request) uninvolved editors to remove actually inappropriate contributions. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:52, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

I certainly do expect uninvolved editors to remove the offending section. And I ask that you revert your revert. Apteva (talk) 14:59, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

The section is not obviously offending, so I must decline your request. -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:01, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

ANI

Please see WP:ANI#JHunterJ for violation of the 1RR sanctions on WP:MOS. Apteva (talk) 15:23, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Birds

Please bear in mind that I have no opinion on the issue and would not likely vote either way when it comes up again. I can see the validity of both sides, though.

This is not the only long standing dispute that WP has. I am simply summarizing the situation as I see it. One of the long standing disputes, Yogurt vs. something else was evidently successfully resolved.

It is my recommendation that if anyone, yourself or anyone else, wants to change Hooded Crow to Hooded crow it be done to all 10,000 articles, and only after all (most) of the people who thought it should be Hooded Crow agree that it should be Hooded crow. That is the way consensus works. It takes time to achieve, but once it is achieved it can be implemented quickly and there will be no objections to the change. That is what consensus means. I can think of consensus discussions that went on for thirty years and were only decided because the original option was no longer an option. And I am not exaggerating about 30 years. But normally it does not take that long nor are there that many who hold on to their opinion. I think I could count on one hand the editors who want (wanted?) to change Kiev to the "official name". I recently checked google ngram to see how that was trending - maybe in 20 years. Apteva (talk) 23:03, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

This is the wrong venue for your recommendation. Kindly steer clear of my talk page; you have made enough of a nuisance of yourself and have worn out my welcome with your incredibly silly ANI against me. -- JHunterJ (talk) 23:29, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 18

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Sarah Langan, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Garden City High School (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:20, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Courtesy notification of discussion

You have been mentioned here in a discussion at this user talk page. (I tried to add a WP:AC/DS template, but was not able to find the right one.) Regards, --Neotarf (talk) 21:28, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! -- JHunterJ (talk) 21:37, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

RM

With regard to "If you're unhappy with a proposal's introduction, suggest changes to the OP and let them make any changes". Been there, tried that, not worth asking every editor who edits an article to change their edit - just fix what needs to be fixed. Works better. Apteva (talk) 13:46, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Unless you get blocked for altering their text over their objections, yes. Also, steer clear of my Talk page. This note was better confined to the discussion it started in. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:51, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Holocaust (sacrifice)

If I may, what is your reasoning for locating the TOC to the right? This is not the standard for article and I can see no way it may be an obstruction.
—Sowlos (talk) 15:34, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

The removal of it gave no reasoning, so when I restored the redirect hatnote, I brought it back as well. No objections to its removal with the reason above. -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:39, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Talk:List of Carl Squared episodes

Per your contributions here, please consider commenting at Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/Talk:List of Carl Squared episodes. I couldn't find the policy/guideline regarding talk pages of redirect pages e.g. when the talk page itself is maintained, when the talk page itself also is redirected, whether there is a speedy delete for such a talk page. Thanks in advance for your insight. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 10:13, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Why is Facultative not a disambiguation page?

In this edit summary, you said that Facultative is "not a dab page." Why? Should it potentially be tagged as a set-index article instead? --SoledadKabocha (talk) 06:33, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

It's a list of partial title matches. The entries include the word "facultative" in a longer phrase, but none of them are ambiguous with the title "Facultative" (that is, no reader would expect to find any of those article in an encyclopedia with the single-word title "Facultative". It does not look like a set index either, for the same reason. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:01, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Ok, thanks... perhaps I should have thought a little harder; I was in a bit of a hurry. ~~Is there any maintenance tag that might be appropriate?~~ --SoledadKabocha (talk) 15:59, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

On second thought, I should probably think harder about that myself (and then be bold...) I didn't mean to hassle you with unnecessary questions. --SoledadKabocha (talk) 17:33, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

No problem. Perhaps it just needs a better intro before the list of partial title matches. {{Lead rewrite}}? -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:24, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Weisman Art Museum / WAM

Regarding this edit asserting that the Weisman Art Museum is "not known as WAM": while the article may not mention it, it certainly self-identifies that way: http://weisman.umn.edu/ – I see WAM used there 10 times, including "About WAM". -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 05:41, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

If the Misplaced Pages article doesn't mention it, we don't list it on the Misplaced Pages disambiguation page. We're not trying to disambiguate the web, just Misplaced Pages. See WP:DABACRONYM. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:40, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Comet Hale-Bopp

This is a bit hasty, no? I obviously disagree with the comment of "disruptive". This is an obvious move that clearly has support. It certainly was not open long enough for those who support this move to weigh in, and anyone who opposes it clearly can not be opposing it for any valid reason. 18 hrs and 48 min on a weekend? Seriously this is not what I would expect. Care to reconsider? Apteva (talk) 06:04, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Aspen-Pitkin County Airport

Please. Closing as Snow with two votes? Counting the nominator, that is 2:1 and with only one more vote becomes tied at 2:2. With two more it becomes 3:2 in favor of moving. Per WP:Snow, What the snowball clause is not, is an uphill battle that might not be winnable. Clearly that is the case here. To me it is cut and dry - move, and I have not seen any valid arguments against the move. Once again, I strongly disagree with the comment of "disruptive". It is never disruptive to correct an error. I will not bother to check to see if any of the others have been closed but ask that those also be reconsidered, as I am more than sure that they have been. Apteva (talk) 06:15, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

In addition, I would not consider that you are an "uninvolved user/admin" in any of the RM discussions that I initiate, per previous interaction, and would ask that you re-open all of them and leave the closes to an admin who does not have an ax to grind with me, and can fairly and impartially consider them. Apteva (talk) 06:27, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware, there's no requirement for the initiator to bless the uninvolvement of an uninvolved closing admin. You'll have to go ask someone else to re-open your disruptive RMs. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:10, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

That responsibility lies on your shoulders and yours alone. If you have an ax to grind against an editor it is a misuse of tools to speedy close a discussion that editor has opened, instead of allowing someone who can make a fair and unbiased decision do the close. Should this pattern continue, I can assure you that you will lose those tools. Misplaced Pages has no need for admins who can not see biases where they exist. Apteva (talk) 18:21, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Catholicity

I agree there could be a primary topic for Catholicity, but I think it would be Catholicism if anything, not Catholicism#History of the term Catholic. JFHutson (talk) 16:40, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm fine with that too. The other arrangement of the new disambiguation page landed it on WP:MALPLACED. I'll make that change. Cheers! -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:46, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Move review for Misplaced Pages:Move review/Log/2012 November 19

An editor has asked for a Move review of Misplaced Pages:Move review/Log/2012 November 19. Because you closed the move discussion for this page, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the move review. Apteva (talk) 18:39, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Campaign button

Thanks for sorting out the page placement for this and Campaign Button. Candleabracadabra (talk) 00:40, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Like -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:03, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

RfD

Due to your recent edit on HP (disambiguation) and several in the history, I'm linking you to an RfD I started: Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2012 December 1 CTF83! 02:13, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Close

Please revert your close at Talk:Comet Shoemaker–Levy 9#Requested move. As you may or may not know, comets are correctly spelled with a hyphen, not an endash, and as you may or may not know, I am attempting to call attention to the error and fix it in the MOS. This premature close is highly inappropriate. Thanks. Apteva (talk) 21:39, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

No, and stop being disruptive. As you already know, Misplaced Pages consensus style is to use an endash. You are disruptively using the wrong venues to call attention to it or to "fix" what you perceive to be an error. -- JHunterJ (talk) 21:42, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

What exactly do you consider the "right venues"? Please see my proposal. It is never disruptive to make proposals such as opening RM's or RfC's. Let them go a week/month and see if anyone agrees, and let someone else do the close. Please. Apteva (talk) 22:27, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

WP:VPP, or follow WP:CONTENTDISPUTE. Yes, it is sometimes disruptive. Let the RFC/U and AN/I finish. Please. -- JHunterJ (talk) 22:34, 2 December 2012 (UTC)