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.
Seeing you've edited related articles recently, I want to ask you: In my attempts at some cleanup and organization, what do you think about this? —ScouterSig20:01, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If the dab page disambiguates only one capitalization variation, then that should be used as the page name, so I think that I Love You was the proper title. If the cases of the entries are mixed, then there's no guideline preference. -- JHunterJ (talk) 02:16, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A user is trying to sidestep the WP:EL advice by listing the non-notable, unofficial computer games at Variations of Settlers of Catan. I'm about to hit 3RR, so if you feel the same about that article as you do about the main one, your help would be appreciated. Percy Snoodle (talk) 10:39, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You might have avoided the headaches if you had simply spoken up about what was bugging you about the section title. It took another admin to tell me that it had been added by a since-indef banned user. Had you mentioned that, I would have helped you find a more neutral section title. By acting the way you did, you created the adversarial problem, which in retrospect could have been handled far more intelligently than a person of your level of experience should have. Please make a point of discussing your concerns, JHunterj; as far as I know, few if any of us are actual psychics. I don't consider myself entrely unreasonable. By foregoing even the attempt to discuss your issue, you put yourself into AN/I territory. Let's try to avoid that problem in the future, okay? - Arcayne(cast a spell)16:29, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. And you might have avoided the headaches by assuming good faith and working toward consensus instead of blindly reverting and escalating to AN/I prematurely, or simply by reading edit summaries and Talk page content. -- JHunterJ (talk) 01:55, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding this, I would much appreciate it if you answered my previous inquiry (which you have now archived), instead of ignoring it altogether. If the solution was not to your satisfaction, please make time to address the concerns raised by the fellow editors. If you are not willing to discuss the issue, then please do not revert the dab to your preferred version—as an admin you should know better than that! You can't just have it your way and ignore valid questions.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 13:48, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize if I'm unable to keep up with the volume of your questions on multiple talk pages. But being insulted does not encourage any redoubling of my efforts. -- JHunterJ (talk) 00:42, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps we wouldn't have to resolve to mutual insults if you properly addressed the original concerns in the first place instead of casually dismissing them, using MOSDAB as a carte-blanche, and accusing the other party of ignorance? When one asks a question and is ignored, it sure does not help further collaboration. Anyway, I in turn apologize for any rudeness I allowed to slip through; I assure you it was not personal but only due to my love of the project (and perhaps stress). I hope you'll find time to address my last remaining concern regarding the inclusion of the aggregate sentence in the Baykal dab (and, if you choose to oppose, explain why the benefits I listed are not sufficient to invoke IAR in this particular case). Shouldn't take more than fifteen minutes of your time, I'd say? I am satisfied with the replies regarding the other two points, providing, of course, that folks who'll show up later to comment support them as well.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 01:12, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm thinking the descriptions on Exhaust are too long. Thoughts? And I know you don't normally deal with hatnotes, but I could use another set of eyes at the ones on Fatigue (medical). Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 20:47, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please take the time to discuss changing the current consensus in Harry Potter before back-dooring a couple of weak references in. I know you have argued repeatedly and insistently for its inclusion in HP (dab), but it is never going to be added without consensus both in the parent article that you seem to think is the anchor and the dab. I am not sure what you find so difficult about using the discussion page. - Arcayne(cast a spell)23:55, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To your comment on my discussion page, I reply: "Isn't it nice to know that an editor can mature and learn more about his working environment in just five months?" Seriously, J. You need to seek consensus in Discussion. Don't forget the D portion of BRD. - Arcayne(cast a spell)00:11, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously, A, you need to look at the issue without your fancruft blinders. "HP" commonly refers to Harry Potter, and the rest of this is just a tempest in your teapot. -- JHunterJ (talk) 00:13, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I readily admit that I hate the fancruft, but that doesn't matter here. It is unreasonable to expect that someone comes to Wikipedia looking for Harry Potter will type in HP. More often they will type 'Harry' or 'Potter'. Why is it so very hard for you to understand and accept this? - Arcayne(cast a spell)01:16, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Evidence to the contrary, in the form of the many edits by different editors to add Harry Potter to the dab page, and the use of HP in print without explanation. Why is it so very hard for you to understand and accept this? -- JHunterJ (talk) 10:43, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Edit-warring at "entropy"
Hi,
I just noticed that you are the one doing the edit warring. Please stop. As best as I can tell, you have no experience in calculating or measuring entropy in any physics, chemical or information system. As it appears that you are far from a subject expert in this matter, I strongly suggest that you avoid getting into edit wars with people who are subject experts. I suppose that maybe you think you are "helping" or something, but its not clear to me why you would think this. Mostly, you've managed to insert incorrect information into the Entropy article, and to annoy me in the process! linas (talk) 15:27, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am cleaning up a disambiguation page, which as best I can tell you are unfamiliar with. Please stop edit warring over it. -- JHunterJ (talk) 21:36, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello JHunterJ. See this report at the 3RR noticeboard. You are one of the editors who reverted Abtract, and he is the target of the report. Do you want to add your own comments to the 3RR discussion? EdJohnston (talk) 19:48, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Tweaked. And even before the Shakespeare link was created, that entry was okay, since the included blue link was blue. I would have just left the entry word unlinked rather than red linked if nothing else linked ot it, but that hasn't been codified. -- JHunterJ (talk) 02:01, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
Arcayne's claims to the contrary, adding the selfref to the HP dab is not the same edit or even the same effect as editing the primary topics. HP (disambiguation) is the page in question.
Decline reason:
There's clear edit warring going on there. Note that 3RR applies to undoing the actions of another editor, it doesn't matter whether or not these are the same edits or even the same editor. — Yamla (talk) 13:43, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
This article could use your review. It's hovering between a list and a dab page. I think we should convert it to a dab page unless you have other ideas. Viriditas (talk) 22:49, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A briefer dab page with the various "Harry Potter (xxx)" articles could be created, with the List article as a see also. -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:38, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The primary topic on "X (disambiguation)" is always the article arrived at by entering "X" in the search box and clicking Go. -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:37, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Barrientos
Hi, JHunterJ. I followed a link here from the 3RR noticeboard, but now that I'm here I see that you're involved in a lot of dab pages, and I wonder if I could ask your advice about something. I created the page Barrientos which had been a redirect, but afterwards discovered that there aren't really supposed to be dab pages about surnames. I tried to convert it to a surname page but don't really know what they're supposed to look like or where to get information to put on them. I've simply listed on the page all the Wikipedia articles I could find about people with that name. Perhaps some of the less notable should be removed? Do you have any advice what to do with this page? Thanks. --☺Coppertwig (talk) 16:39, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Barrientos looks good, really. I wouldn't remove any of the entries, since none of them are red links. Lists of people, for some reason, favor dropping the articles "a" "an" and "the" at the beginning of the description, and I like to include life span, e.g. "(1910-2002)" or "(born 1979)" after the name and before the comma, but all of that is really just cosmetic. I assume "Barrientos" is a Spanish surname, so {{surname|nocat}} could be used and the Category:Spanish surnames could be listed separately. -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:42, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Cool. BTW, usually name pages combine the information like is on William and William (name), because most of them won't be long enough to split into two like that. So if you have any info on the name Barrientos, it could go in the article before the list of name holders. -- JHunterJ (talk) 10:57, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I see. Well, one of my problems is that I don't have any information about the name; but I gather from what you said and from the William example that the page is allowed to exist even if it doesn't have such information. I figure probably somebody will add information in future, anyway. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 12:17, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe for you to actually post them. I am specifically asking you to provide citation - for the sixth time - that supports your point of view. I am stating that, aside from the two wholly non-notable citations which I dismissed. I have not seen the other two. I would like to see them. If you do not know where you posted them, admit such. If you have the specific links, please post them. Consider this a formal request for citation. - Arcayne(cast a spell)00:32, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe this will sound harsh: you are not in charge. The information is there, go read it, and then stop dismissing notable citations. -- JHunterJ (talk) 00:34, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Um, should I use semaphore? I haven't seen the two other citations you are talking about. This is not about authority, but about an admin refusing to supply requested information. Do you really want to walk this road yet again? - Arcayne(cast a spell)00:39, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You should use your eyes. There are two revisions linked in that paragraph, and each revision includes two citations. 2+2 still equals 4. -- JHunterJ (talk) 00:41, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wait are you referring to your link move to add them to the article page? If so, there is no article within the Atlanta Constitution for the article you cited. And the other article mentions H once, but not by itself (it mentions Harry Potter as well).
Revised math: 4 claimed notable references - 3 non-notable citations - 1 more citation that appears not to exist = zero citations. I guess you have no citations that notably use Harry Potter. Bye-bye dab term. - Arcayne(cast a spell)00:59, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You're wrong. The AJC article exists, and all four articles exist -- articles cited show notability of the thing cited, and I'm not claiming that HP is never used without expansion. -- JHunterJ (talk) 10:54, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, prove me wrong, Jhj - find the citation and bing it here like a link. Maybe its my browser, OS or whatnot, but it doesn't link to the article from the link cite news template you used. I was able to see the other three articles. Wow. You and I both know that those wouldn't pass muster for any sort of reference, right? Tell me you know those citations were tangential at best, please. If, out of over "300" refs, all you could find is those four, I would dare say your argument is on shakier ground than I had previously thought. - Arcayne(cast a spell)11:40, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Proven already. I don't know of a link to the AJC article, but happily there's no requirement that a cited source be archived online anywhere. Again, you might try your local library. Only you claim that those wouldn't pass whatever muster you have so far failed to quote, despite requests to do so. -- JHunterJ (talk) 22:46, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Er, not proven, J. Give me some time to craft a response to your request in the dab page that I back up my view of notability. I promise you, it isn't being forgotten. - Arcayne(cast a spell)23:11, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, no, I think that repetition of "breathing" is OK. If the whole description is captured in the parenthetical, there's no need to repeat it, but if a description is needed, it's okay to repeat words from the entry there. -- JHunterJ (talk) 22:47, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Because another editor objected, Sesshomaru. Working toward consensus and a better Wikipedia trumps having every dab page follow exactly the same formula all the way down. -- JHunterJ (talk) 10:46, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, J. I've been scanning the Baykal dab discussion to see whether all of the points have been addressed, and noticed that this thread (the portion starting with "to counter that") is still open. I know it was easy to miss it with so many separate threads not converging really well, but if you could provide some closer on that last piece, I'd certainly appreciate it. Best,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:01, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Boo (disambiguate), by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Boo (disambiguate) is a disambiguation page that only points to a single article, or no articles at all.
To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Boo (disambiguate), please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click hereCSDWarnBot (talk) 02:31, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a fun one for you. Current search leads the user to the dab page, but it's pretty clear from any Google or library search, that the primary topic is People's Park (Berkeley). Unfortunately, somebody went through all the links and dabbed them, so the what links here isn't informative. Shouldn't People's Park (Berkeley) be the primary topic? Viriditas (talk) 23:42, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just for the record your question was: "Me again. I just really need your opinion on what to do with these. A cleanup? A merger? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 06:05, 2 April 2008 (UTC)" and my fairly immediate reply was: "Both. Abtract (talk) 07:39, 2 April 2008 (UTC)". Abtract (talk) 08:51, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
They could be merged and cleaned up, which is what I suppose Abtract was indicating with "both", or they could be cleanup up and linked to each other in "See also" sections. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:07, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And I still don't agree with you. If dabbing treats all capitalisations, punctuations and even minor spelling diffs as equal (see mos:dab#Opening sentence as an example), then this should be carried through into the primary topic/article - a point I have been making before, as you both know. "Ambiguosity" should ignore caps etc because most people in the modern world are very casual about such things and many may well type in caps when they don't specifically mean to. Abtract (talk) 14:47, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You're butting in, Abtract; the question wasn't about your opinion, it was about mine. But since we're here instead of on the appropriate talk page: Dabbing doesn't treat all caps, puncts, and spelling diffs as equal, despite the opening sentence section. The opening sentence applies to the "may [also] refer to" opening sentence. It may or may not apply to the primary topic determination. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:52, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
