User talk:Jojhutton/Archive 5

Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7→Archive 9

Removing PROD of The Most Deadly Game

Why did you remove the PROD tag? This topic is obviously non-notable, even with two known actors. How is this topic notable? --George Ho (talk) 11:04, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

It is a television program that existed. There are multiple sources confirming this fact. Question is, why did you add the PROD?--JOJ Hutton 13:08, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
I hope this essay helps: WP:EXISTS, Wikipedia:Existence ≠ Notability, and other essays. Also, there is no proof that this topic follows WP:GNG; no official guidelines or policies for televisions and fiction are commonly accepted at this time, and WP:Notability (fiction) is currently an essay, not a policy or guideline. How does this topic receive significant coverage? Trivial coverage is absent from GNG; have you found reliable third-party or independent sources that significantly covered this topic? Which significant coverages? --George Ho (talk) 16:45, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
This link (http://www.netglimse.com/celebs/pages/george_maharis/index.shtml) is tagged for violating copyrights of George Maharis article. Just be careful next time! By the way, this show is discussed in WP:Notability/Noticeboard. --George Ho (talk) 10:56, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 02 January 2012

San Francisco meetup at WMF headquarters

Hi Jojhutton,

I just wanted to give you a heads-up about the next wiki-meetup happening in SF. It'll be located at our very own Wikimedia Foundation offices, and we'd love it if some local editors who are new to the meetup scene came and got some free lunch with us :) Please sign up on the meetup page if you're interested in attending, and I hope to see you soon! Maryana (WMF) (talk) 22:02, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 09 January 2012

Military Historian of the Year

Nominations for the "Military Historian of the Year" for 2011 are now open. If you would like to nominate an editor for this award, please do so here. Voting will open on 22 January and run for seven days. Thanks! On behalf of the coordinators, Nick-D (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 23:29, 15 January 2012 (UTC) You were sent this message because you are a listed as a member of the Military history WikiProject.

Re; Terra Nova edits

Since you seem determined to follow my edits around, you might consider that discussion is going to work a lot better with not only me, but your fellow editors as well. I invite you to discuss your edits using the article discussion page. Specifically, it might be extremely helpful for you to bring the relevant passage of MOS TV that you think governs your editorial belief. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 06:30, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Please back up your belief that I am some how harassing you with evidence. This is not the first time you have mentioned harassment/stalking and I take these accusations very seriously against my character. JOJ Hutton 12:20, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
You know what? Never mind. It would take too much time that I simply do not have to point out each instance. Therefore, I won't make the claim again, unless the problem pops up elsewhere. I'll be monitoring the situation more carefully and hopefully will not have any subsequent problems. I won't be contacting you again, either. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 08:19, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

January 2012 Newsletter for WikiProject United States and supported projects

The January 2012 issue of the WikiProject United States newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

 
--Kumi-Taskbot (talk) 19:27, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 January 2012

The Bugle: Issue LXX, January 2012

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 00:12, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 January 2012

The Signpost: 30 January 2012

The Signpost: 06 February 2012

Restoring content without explanation

Your restored the Stargazer and Excelsior content with no explanation as to why. There are a couple of prompts on the latter's talk page explaining the purpose behind a redirect, and several conversations about WP:GNG of individual Star Trek ships on the Wikiproject talk page. None of the edits to the articles add an assertion of notability, nor references to significant third-party coverage. You've been editing for several years, so I know you know these policies. In the next couple of days, please initiate a conversation explaining your restoration of this content at the Wikiproject talk page (likely has more watchlisters than either of the individual articles). Many thanks. --EEMIV (talk) 02:50, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, I did restore two articles that were redirected to other pages without any discussion. Redirects are defacto deletions, and should never be left in the hands of a single editor. This is disruptive to the consensus building process. Another policy editors who have been editing for several years should know.
Before restoring any redirect, I always look on the talk page, to see what the consensus to this redirect was. In these two cases, there was no community discussion, although as you stated, you did give a rationale at one of the articles, but that was hardly a discussion. Discussion, and not the wishes of a single editor, is the keystone to building Wikipedia. If there was a discussion at the wikiproject that formed a consensus on redirecting these articles, and I missed it, then please link it for me if you could. Otherwise these types of discussions should take place at each articles talk page. If and when consensus decides to redirect the articles, then they can be appropriately redirected to whatever page in agreed upon.--JOJ Hutton 03:56, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Please take a gander here for the most recent bouncing around of ideas re. individual ships and classes. Yes, you're right: I didn't post a "hey, I'm thinking about redirecting this" notice on the Excelsior talk page, which I had done for most of the ship class articles, and I should have. Sorry about that. (By the way, I didn't mean for my earlier post to come across as snide or condescending; if it did, my bad.) The Stargazer redirect came from another editor ~3 years ago, although I support it, too.
Anyhow, unless you beat me to it, tomorrow morning I'll post a flag at the Wikiproject talk page asking for input -- again, I think there are more interested eyeballs there than on these two ships. If you don't find the above-linked conversation to your satisfaction, would you be okay carrying out the conversation on the wikiproject page, with an appropriate pointer from the individual articles' talk pages? Happy editing, and goodnight. --EEMIV (talk) 05:27, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
I took a closer look at the conversation I mentioned above and, yeah, it focuses just on ship classes. I think the same underlying issue of WP:GNG is relevant for individual vessels, but I'll still go ahead and start up a specific thread about individual ships. --EEMIV (talk) 05:29, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I opted instead to go ahead and initiate (for the Stargazer) and sustain (for the Excelsior) GNG conversations on the individual article talk pages, and also put a pointer on the wikiproject page asking for additional comments. Your edit summary restoring the Excelsior article reads "Needs more discussion", but you have not yet engaged in the discussion/responded to my 23 Jan rationale for redirect on the talk page. I'd appreciate it if you would. --EEMIV (talk) 21:40, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

USS Stargazer (Star Trek) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added links pointing to Runabout and Greg Cox
USS Excelsior (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Starfleet Command

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:12, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 13 February 2012


Flag icon from Alexa bot

Closing this unproductive thread, due to second personal attack
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Could you get the Alexa bot to do the job correctly by yuy if you really feel the flag must go but please stop editing after it. You forgot to say th data was from the US when you changed the Conservapedia article. It would be better if you left it alone than started messing it up every so often to pursue your agenda. Dmcq (talk) 20:44, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

You should not readd icons into infoboxes that are clearly against MOS.--JOJ Hutton 21:10, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
Still pushing the old MOSFLAG line, eh? You know the MOS is ambiguous, yet you just carry on applying it all kinds of ways. If this flag really really has to go, because it's such a horrific, eye-watering blight on the article, then something has to replace it or the statistic makes no sense. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:22, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
If you do not like the MOS as it is written, then go to the proper venue to request a change. Its not ambiguous, it says clearly to avoid flags in infoboxes. Attacking me on my talk page is not only disruptive, but may get you reported if it continues.--JOJ Hutton 21:25, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
That wasn't an attack, and you know as well as I do that reporting me for something like that is pointless. We've been there a hundred times - it says "avoid", not that they are prohibited. The Conservapedia flag has a purpose - either leave it there or add something which performs the same purpose. Not hard. What's disruptive is removing something which has a function and not replacing it, leaving a nonsense. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:49, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
"Avoid".... Yes, that's exactly what I wrote. And don't confuse or interpret the need for information, as the need for an icon or a flag. It's not the same. never has been, never will be. The information at "Conservapedia" may have a purpose, but not necessarily the flag, as you suggest.--JOJ Hutton 23:07, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
Who suggested it was the same? You don't appear to understand anything either I or Dmcq have said. Before you took the flag away, it was denoting that the following data was from the US. After you took the flag away, there was nothing to say where the data was from. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:15, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 February 2012

The Bugle: Issue LXXI, February 2012

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 10:01, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Thought you'd want to know

I thought you'd want to know that I edited your user page to link to an identical edit counter as the soxred93 one has expired (Tparis has taken over the tools). Hope you don't mind. :-) --Gilderien Talk|Contribs 18:58, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 February 2012

Rafael Palmeiro

In addition to being poorly worded, which in itself was grounds for deletion, there's no indication that Raffy was suspended for life. Maybe he was "boycotted", but that's not the same thing. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:22, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

I did as quick Internet search and couldn't find anything either. Most likely the person who added that information was just a POV pusher. --JOJ Hutton 01:26, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Mickey Mouse Costume.JPG

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Mickey Mouse Costume.JPG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 04:51, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 05 March 2012

The Signpost: 12 March 2012

Apple Inc.

thanks for fixing that citation re the This American Life and the Mike Daisey fabrications Decora (talk) 00:32, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Restoring ST ship "content" redux

Once again: There is a discussion here, which also points toward the Wikiproject talk page. I'll again point you toward the long-standing wikiproject discussion for articles about Star Trek ships. Please stop restoring content without actually engaging in conversation about the content's failure to meet WP:GNG (which is the wikiproject consensus). Please respond to the prod for redirect discussion on the article page and/or the wikiproject page. As an aside, "more thorough" does not trump WP:GNG, WP:RS. --EEMIV (talk) 18:36, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi. When you recently edited Starfleet ship registry and classes in Star Trek, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Registry and USS Odyssey (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) 10:30, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 19 March 2012

The Bugle: Issue LXXII, March 2012

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 02:18, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 March 2012

ANI

I wish to bring this[1] from yesterday, to your attention. I think at least two admins are encouraging B3430715. It is my strong impression he is a 'weak' troll, and look at what is happening at the ANI. Do you know why this means so much to me? Because I have been severely punished for being uncivil in the past. But this editor gets to do what he pleases, apparently. ANI is pure rubbish. Or am I in error about this?—Djathinkimacowboy 17:31, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm not canvassing, but have you seen this deliberate disruption to the ANI itself?[2] Perhaps I must let him go, but he's going to be in the soup sooner rather than later. The admins went far too easy on this editor.—Djathinkimacowboy 20:07, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

April Masini

Hi Jojhutton. I have read several of your comments on various pages and wondered if you might be willing to offer me your opinion on the April Masini page? It was originally created by GMHayes and received some really bad feedback calling for it to be deleted. I just finished adding over 50 references to the page (including excerpts) and I would be incredibly grateful if you would take a look at it and tell me your opinion? Thanks so much in advance. Jennyspencer (talk) 16:53, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Banned user?

Hi, I noticed you have reverted several edits by New York4152 (talk · contribs) with the statement "revert changes made by a banned user" ([3] [4] [5] [6] [7]). While I agree the edits are annoying, what are you basing your accusation on, and have you reported this to administrators? —KuyaBriBriTalk 19:27, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

I realize that perhaps "banned" was probably not the correct technical term in this instance, but at least an "indefinitely blocked" user. No need to split hairs on terminology. This user is a sock of User:Jonathan Yip. And User New York is making the same type of edits. Confirmed socks of Jonathon Yip. I was planning on reporting this user as well, when I had the chance.--JOJ Hutton 19:35, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Never mind, I see it now. I got hung up on your use of the term "banned". I have added to the Jonathan Yip SPI. —KuyaBriBriTalk 19:38, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. ; ) --JOJ Hutton 19:41, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 02 April 2012

Repeated Acts of Vandalism on Automotive Superlatives Page

I spent hours and hours reorganizing and fixing format on the Automotives Superlatives page and you continue your acts of apparent vandalism. Each time I undo those acts I offer succinct but detailed reasons and you pretend I have offered no justification when you undo my corrections. You have yet to offer even one coherent sentence for why you are making the changes you have made. Moreover the format of your changes is completely inconsistent with the entire section and is inconsistent with Wikipedia practice (or any practice). (Moreover it is extremely sloppy.) If you want to make a change pease make it a small one and offer a JUSTIFICATION. Thank You. Sadowski (talk) 01:05, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Uh.......Really? I' couldnt find any evidence that I had ever even edited that page, let alone vandalized it. I don't think you have the right person. Could you look again and perhaps come to a different conclusion?--JOJ Hutton 01:46, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
All I can tell you is this Talk Page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Meio) is associated with the edits I am referring to. Oddly the Talk Page has no User Page but the user identifies himself as you and links to your User Page. If it's not you then someone else is claiming your identity. Sadowski (talk) 16:25, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
I don't see where the user is identifying himself as me. Perhaps you are confusing the welcome message I left for this user nearly two years ago as the identification. It's not. Read The welcome template page to gain a further understanding of what that really is. Hopefully you won't accidentally warn someone else in the future. --JOJ Hutton 16:35, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. I think the fact that the User has no Talk page was confusing me. Sadowski (talk) 17:12, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

April 2012

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Disneyland. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

  1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
  2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. There is a legitimate concern regarding this date, and you have been asked to discuss this. Please stop reverting each other's work and go to the talk page. -- McDoobAU93 02:53, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

No, the edits are from a sock of a currently blocked/banned user Jonathon Yip. Please look more carefully.--JOJ Hutton 03:04, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
I know you're trying to fix Jonathan Yip's work, but if you'll please look at the talk page for the article, there are sources that back up the July 18 date as being the official opening date. --McDoobAU93 03:09, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
I'm not taking sides in any dispute, but sock puppets need to be reverted on site. The other editor IS the sock.--JOJ Hutton 03:11, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
If you're suggesting that GeorgeKelsey (talk · contribs) is a sockpuppet, you'll need to flag the account accordingly. I don't see anything connecting him to Jonathan Yip, nor are there any suspected sockpuppet tags on GeorgeKelsey's user page. If that's the case, then full-protection of the article could still be beneficial, since the Kelsey account has been around for a while (although there is a rather curious four-year gap in editing until now) and should be auto-confirmed. --McDoobAU93 03:19, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Lets see. Now blocked and confirmed sock puppet of Jonathon Yip, User:New York4152 made this edit just today. Then was later blocked as a sock. Then the next user comes along two hours later making the same edits. Not really rocket science on this one. Hardly a need to bother a check user when a simple duck test says it all.--JOJ Hutton 03:28, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I'm not hearing quacking. Jonathan Yip didn't start until June 2011, while GeorgeKelsey was started in 2008. Yes, GeorgeKelsey hasn't edited in 4 years, but the editor hasn't been blocked, according to the block log. So that means either the editor has returned on their own, or Jonathan Yip hacked into the account and assumed GeorgeKelsey's identity. Or, George is the puppeteer and Jonathan Yip was one of his socks. --McDoobAU93 03:42, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Could really seriously use an auto block exempt too

This user's request to have autoblock on their IP address lifted has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.
Jojhutton (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
170.213.131.190 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Block message:

Autoblocked because your IP address was recently used by "The Wild World of MascotGuy". The reason given for The Wild World of MascotGuy's block is: "sockpuppet of blocked user".

Accept reason: IPBE granted. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 22:07, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

This is getting out if hand. My account keeps getting caught up in an auto block and I seriously need an auto block exemption because this is ridiculous. I couldn't even edit my own talk page to leave this message. I had to turn off the wifi on my phone and leave this unblock request using my phones data plan.JOJ Hutton 16:52, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

IP block exempt

I have granted your account an exemption from IP blocking. This will allow you to edit through full blocks affecting your IP address when you are logged in.

Please read the page Wikipedia:IP block exemption carefully, especially the section on IP block exemption conditions.

Note in particular that you are not permitted to use this newly-granted right to edit Wikipedia via anonymous proxies, or disruptively. If you do, or there is a serious concern of abuse, then the right may be removed by any administrator.

Appropriate usage and compliance with the policy may be checked periodically, due to the nature of block exemption, and block exemption will be removed when no longer needed (for example, when the block it is related to expires).

I hope this will enhance your editing, and allow you to edit successfully and without disruption. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 22:07, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Mickey Mouse Costume.JPG

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Mickey Mouse Costume.JPG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 03:33, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 09 April 2012

The Signpost: 16 April 2012

The Signpost: 23 April 2012

The Bugle: Issue LXXIII, April 2012

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 00:17, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 April 2012

The Signpost: 07 May 2012

The Signpost: 14 May 2012

Fantasy Football

In trying to discover things about fantasy football, it appears everyone quotes Wikipedia regarding how fantasy football began. The problem is that there is no information about where Gary Chiapetta and Davad Mcnamara were when they refined the scoring rules. I would like to contact them but can't find out where to start. Can you help? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.154.43.10 (talk) 22:31, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Sorry I don't know the guys.--JOJ Hutton 23:38, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 21 May 2012

The Bugle: Issue LXXIV, May 2012

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 14:52, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 May 2012

Ummm....

Have you been looking at my user page? You better tell the truth, or else! ...Just kidding, I take that threat back. :) By the way, I noticed that you reverted my edit on the article Apple Inc. As a matter of FACT, NOT opinion, it is actually true that Apple is very stubborn about their products and their users are diminishing and I know what I'm talking about. Interlude 65 02:37, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Got a source? And please read the three policies that were linked.--JOJ Hutton 02:47, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
No, I will NOT read the three policies that were linked! Why? BOOORRRRIIINNGGG! Interlude 65 03:09, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
Nice attitude. Your small editing history indicates an inherent ignorance of Wikipedia's guidelines and policies. Perhaps you should become a bit familiar with some of them before attempting to add controversial material into any article. --JOJ Hutton 15:19, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 04 June 2012

Civil War

Thank you for commenting on the talk page about the GA status reassessment for American Civil War. Please leave you opinion also on the reassessment page at Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/American Civil War/2. This is where we will get some fixes for this article.Quarkgluonsoup (talk) 15:51, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 June 2012

Thanks!

Thank you for the barnstar. It's quite a battle with those articles, that's for sure (as you well know). Regards, 72Dino (talk) 21:00, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 June 2012

An invitation for you!

Hello, Jojhutton/Archive 5. We are pleased to invite you to join WikiProject Baseball's Umpires task force, a group dedicated to improving articles related to baseball umpires. If you're interested in participating, please add your name to the list of members on the task force page.

This task force is still in a developmental stage and your assistance would be appreciated. Happy editing! AutomaticStrikeout (talk) 17:13, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

GOCE July 2012 Copy Edit Drive

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 19:04, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 June 2012

Talkback

Hello, Jojhutton. You have new messages at Hammersbach's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hammersbach (talk) 00:14, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

July 2012

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, such as on Template talk:Infobox Disney attraction, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. Astros4477 (talk) 16:22, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Ya, simply forgot. Been around long enough, don't need template warning, even a friendly one. Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars.--JOJ Hutton 16:25, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
Sorry my bad, could you go back and sign it though? The bot didn't pick up on it for some reason.--Astros4477 (talk) 16:28, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Change of "Quantum leap" redirect destination

Hello. I looked up "Quantum leap" (in lowercase) and was surprised to find myself reading an article about a television show. It seems that you modified that redirect page a few days ago. I have the strong impression that the concept in physics, and the informal use of the phrase to refer to sudden changes in general, is the primary meaning of this phrase (especially in lowercase). I reverted your change, and I invite you to discuss the issue at Talk:Quantum leap. —BarrelProof (talk) 01:54, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

It's a simple case sensitivity problem. There is or was a message at Quantum Leap directing readers to the other article in the off chance that it was their target. The fact is that the primary article is titled "Quantum Leap". The other article is titled something else altogether. This is last months article views for Atomic electron transition which averages less than 100 views a day, although there was a one day spike of about 800. Quantum Leap, however averaged around 1500. The more popular article should get the redirect, especially when we are talking about simple case sensitivity.--JOJ Hutton 02:27, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for the reply. I thought that in such cases, we would not redirect a lowercase phrase to an uppercase proper name like that, particularly when the title of the TV show is derived from the name of the subject of the other article. I have seen such redirects in the other direction, but not from the lowercase to the uppercase. To me it seems like when most people use the phrase "quantum leap" (in lowercase), they are not referring to an early '90s television show. Personally, I wasn't even aware of the television show. —BarrelProof (talk) 02:51, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
Actually it's a very popular show. The article gets a lot of views. I was surprised to see just how many. Looks like when most people come to wikipedia, they are searching for the television show and not the science article, based on the number of article views. A lot of confused people will be redirected to that other article, who will not be looking for it.--JOJ Hutton 03:03, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 02 July 2012

Obama

If there is I'm coming after you for spilling the beans :-) --NeilN talk to me 21:54, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Zoinks!!!!--JOJ Hutton 21:56, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 09 July 2012

The Signpost: 16 July 2012

The Signpost: 23 July 2012

The Bugle: Issue LXXVI, July 2012

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 09:28, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 July 2012

WP:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Cheers and Frasier task forces

I have proposed a task force of two shows; join in discussion. --George Ho (talk) 16:43, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Chick-Fil-A

 Hello Jojhutton, Lionelt has given you a delicious Chick-Fil-A sammie, for reverting the deletion of Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day and righting an epic injustice! You see, these things promote WikiLove and hopefully this has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a delicious Chick-Fil-A sammie! Enjoy!

I see that you are interested in Reagan. Perhaps you might be interested in !voting here. – Lionel (talk) 01:15, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

  • Although I appreciate the support, I'm officially uninvolved in the overall debate. My only concern in this regard, is that deletion discussions are not closed after 20 minutes by an involved admin, with the statement that "it was going to be a snow delete anyway"JOJ Hutton 01:20, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
    • No. Xe said snow vote. This is quite correct. It would have been. You seem to be confused about the difference between redirection and deletion. No deletion occurred in this instance, as can be easily seen from the page logs. When, as here, a person does a merger and then nominates the merge source article for deletion, which is an error because deletion and AFD are no part of the merger process, we do often rapidly eject that from AFD as an incorrect application of the merger process. Uncle G (talk) 10:13, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 06 August 2012

Lilith Sternin

There is no consensus to merge, but it should not stop me from changing scope of this article, does it? --George Ho (talk) 04:06, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

First you did a controversial page move and although pages can be boldly moved, this is controversial and should be discussed. Bold edits are fine, but I reverted based on the same controversial nature. Per WP:BRD you should propose these changes first before making them again. JOJ Hutton 04:14, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
I have done the RFC. Also, I've reverted everything back due to your reverts, so messy things are resolved. --George Ho (talk) 04:27, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Reverting without discussion

If you're not going to join in the discussion, I suggest you refrain from reverting editors who have joined the discussion. As discussed in talk, there is no justification for including content sourced to open wikis. I'll ask you to self revert or justify your revert according to policy on the talk page. aprock (talk) 05:50, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 13 August 2012

Misunderstandings.

Very predictable response, here, and on users talk page
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I've found that the best way to misunderstandings is to ask before jumping to conclusions. Hope that helps. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 04:14, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Good job. Keep up the clear communications! While you're at it, I'd like to point out that, besides accidentally misinterpreting my statement, you accidentally prefaced your report with a whole paragraph of completely misleading and irrelevant comments about my edit history. Clearly, none of it related to the legal threat you imagined, and it could only have served to prejudice the admins against me. Hmm, I hope I'm not misinterpreting you, so I'm asking. What was your intent here? Why did you bring up all of that peripheral nonsense? Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 07:49, 16 August 2012 (UTC)


Thank you. Your silence speaks louder than words. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 16:47, 16 August 2012 (UTC)


Given that you falsely accused me of violating policy, I think it's particularly insulting to call me a troll. You've been unceasingly hostile from the start, and that's in conflict with the intended collegial atmosphere. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 23:30, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Citations

Articles talk page is the appropriate venue for content discussions
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

About this edit, I'd like to suggest that, rather than removing things that you don't think are adequately cited, you could save us all a lot of time if you first take a moment to search for readily-available citations. Oh, and now I recognize where you know me from. That explains a lot. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 05:28, 17 August 2012 (UTC)


This isn't about content, it's about behavior. Yours. So I took it to you, one-on-one. Unfortunately, ever since you tried to get me blocked based on a strained misunderstanding, you've refused to respond. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 05:38, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Lilith Sternin

I think I have inserted enough info about Lilith's relationship with Sam, Carla, Rebecca, and Frasier. However, they still involve Frasier when it comes to her relationships with others. I'll insert examples of Lilith's relationship with Norm... or Cliff. I don't know which example about her relationship with Woody is. As for Lilith's relationship with the Crane men, I think there is enough info in the "Frasier" section. --George Ho (talk) 05:55, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

As for the article itself, as I said, this article still involved Frasier and Lilith, and Lilith's relationship with people would be worthless without Frasier's involvement. Agree? --George Ho (talk) 06:03, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Give me a day or so to peruse the article. You have a point about the relationships, but still feel that the article is a stand alone article. It would be poor precedent to set, to assume that an topic can't be a stand alone article based on relationships alone. By use ing that reason alone, articles such as Lois Lane (Smallville), wouldn't exists either. There are just times when stand alone articles simply fulfill the needs of the project.--JOJ Hutton 13:22, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
It's been one week since. What are your thought currently? --George Ho (talk) 22:45, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
I think the article needs more commentary about her relationships with other Cheers characters. If I remember correctly, didn't she and Carla have a running gag "tit-for-tat", for lack of a better word, from time to time. I don't personally "own" the last three seasons of the show, so I can't personally verify. She would often times offer advice, especially to the female characters of the show. Didn't she take singing lessons and became quite a good singer? She entertained/stalled the guests at Woody's wedding and would sing to her son. Sometimes she would act out of character. Normally she is reserved and conservative, bit she shows her "hidden" side sometimes, like when she learned how to drive, or when Woody's cousin worked at the bar for one episode, she and the other gals, ogled him all episode. I always loved when Lilith did things that were "out of character" for her. Those are the things that are missing.--JOJ Hutton 23:15, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Look, I'm working on season two; the "tit-tat" stuff is too trivial, as well as her singing talents. The fact: she appeared in both shows, and only Frasier and Frederick are part of her life significantly. Nothing or no one else matters, but then... I don't know. She did not reunite with Cheers characters in Frasier. Adding in too many details of trivial relationships would be a big mistake for me. Look at Diane Chambers article; I've made trivial relationships minimal as possible, didn't I? Also, Lilith in Cheers is different from Lilith in Frasier; didn't you notice? Speaking of singing, I don't know... Driving... I was going to add it, but... I don't know because it also involves Frasier. As said, she's totally different from herself in Frasier. --George Ho (talk) 20:07, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

On the other hand, I don't know. Let's discuss this further in Talk:Lilith Sternin. We'll discuss which part to leave in and leave out. --George Ho (talk) 06:20, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 August 2012

Eurocentric

That actually amused me. I'm an American who has lived a long time in Britain, and I'm continually trying to figure out what is American and what is British grammar, and even spelling words differently at different times. You may well be right about the spelling issue. And I find it odd that the citation template automatically puts date accessed in a dmy format. My analysis of Tamsier is that although he complains about Eurocentricism, he is probably an Afrocentrist (in the sense of the work of Cheikh Anta Diop. I try to be a nothing-centrist but it's hard. :-) Dougweller (talk) 16:41, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Honestly, I wasn't trying to infer that he was right about you being "Eurocentric". I just saw an opportunity to add my opinion on the US/Europe debate on spelling and "what not". I was actually surprised that you were being accused of being Eurocentric, at least by my definition of it. But you're probably correct that this was more of an "Afrocentric" issue on his part, and not a debate over English varieties.--JOJ Hutton 16:46, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
I didn't think you were accusing me of anything, it just made me think about your comments. Tamsier has made a huge mess by creating numerous Serer related articles that assume that we can say that the Serer have been around for thousands of years, ignoring viewpoints that suggest that they emerged as an 11th century split from a culture that had adopted Islam. I guess you can argue that as they kept their traditional religion you can somehow call the original culture Serer, but that seems pretty tricky. But I don't think the Serer as a particular interest of yours, right? Dougweller (talk) 02:41, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
Uh.....nope. In fact I got lost halfway through reading your comment. LOL.--JOJ Hutton 02:43, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Talk Page Guidelines

User got a bit of a boomerang effect at ANI, just as I had predicted.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I've left you a response at my Talk page to your templating of me. But I'm coming to your page, because I see you reverted my refactoring and reintroduced the attack comments into the Talk page. As an editor who prominently claims "Senior Editor" status, you should recognize the difference between a legitimate comment that is a part of a rational debate, and a personal attack that is simply not welcome.

I will quote the Talk page guidelines for you here, specifically Talk Page Guidelines#Behavior that is unacceptable:

    • No personal attacks: A personal attack is saying something negative about another person. This mainly means:
    • No insults: Do not make ad hominem attacks, such as calling someone an idiot or a fascist. Instead, explain what is wrong with an edit and how to fix it.
    • Do not threaten people: For example, threatening people with "admins you know" or having them banned for disagreeing with you. Explaining to an editor the consequences of violating Wikipedia policies, like being blocked for vandalism, is permitted however.
    • Do not make legal threats: Threatening a lawsuit is highly disruptive to Wikipedia, for reasons given at the linked page.

I highlighted a particular bit that is highly relevant here. Debates in Wikipedia are messy enough without people tossing threats around. If an editor is misbehaving, policy allows for explanation of the consequences of violating Wikipedia policies. However, attempts to chill debate by making threats are not permitted. If someone has a real issue with the editor, they can either go to that user's Talk page directly, to an Admin, or to an appropriate noticeboard. There is no need for personal attacks. -- Avanu (talk) 20:56, 25 August 2012 (UTC)


Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

FYI: Telling a person that they are going to get a block because they maintain the same opinion in debate as what they started with is not mere "invective". It is clearly in opposition to policy. And there are appropriate places for such claims, but that is not the article Talk page. -- Avanu (talk) 21:20, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 August 2012

The Bugle: Issue LXXVII, August 2012

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 00:57, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 03 September 2012

Insert non-formatted text here== Stop your stalking of my posts == --Tuco_bad 16:35, 4 September 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cgersten (talk • contribs)

Your Tendentious attitude is very apparent. You continue to add controversial and poorly cited syntheses and original research that has been reverted by multiple editors on at least two pages.JOJ Hutton 16:52, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

You have even stalked me on my edit of the film Grand Hotel, Bush Jr., etc, what is wrong with you that you follow my posts? --Tuco_bad 17:15, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

If you feel harrassed then please by all means make a report at ANI. I'm looking forward yo having your Edits looked at by a much larger audience.JOJ Hutton 17:55, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
I would to file a report at ANI but do no not know the procedure. --Tuco_bad 21:06, 4 September 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cgersten (talk • contribs)

The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #1)

Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page.

Steven Zhang's Fellowship Slideshow

In this issue:

  • Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
  • Research: The most recent DR data
  • Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
  • Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
  • DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
  • Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
  • Proposal: It's time to close the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. Agree or disagree?

--The Olive Branch 19:10, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

File source problem with File:John Albert Gardner III.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:John Albert Gardner III.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Bulwersator (talk) 06:24, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:John Albert Gardner III.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:John Albert Gardner III.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Bulwersator (talk) 09:19, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Warning of Edit War Re Paul Ryan Article

There is a controvertial sentence about Ryan's vice-presidential nomination speech being characterised as "lies". I and many good others objected to include this allegation (of "lies") because it came from highly-partisan sources, with a long and well-known history of anti-Republican bias. There was an extensive discussion in the Talk page, and no consensus was achieved. My point was simple: Presumption of Innocence means that if no consensus is achieved for calling someone a liar, you don't call that person a liar.

Based on that principle, I insisted - and still do - that the sentence which implies that Ryan is a liar is removed. It is based solely - I repeat: solely - on criticism from both Leftie-leaning sources. Hillariously enough, one of the major offenders in this edit-war, ImStillStanding24/7, also gave as a RS nothing else than... Bill Clinton. His position seems to be that if people in the Left criticize a conservative, that must mean it is true. This is a sad joke.

In any case, when there is a controversy whether to include/exclude an allegation, I claim that the thing to do is to exclude it. Simple and Safe. Please investigate this matter further (there is plenty of material in the Talk page of Paul Ryan). You may wish to revisit your comments on my Talk page. It would be awfully nice of you if you deleted them (you can use strikethrough). Looking forward to your response. Cheers Rtmcrrctr (talk) 01:58, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Flags and Same-sex marriage legislation around the world

Could you give your opinion here? 70.253.87.253 (talk) 22:23, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Military history coordinator election

The Military history WikiProject has started its 2012 project coordinator election process, where we will select a team of coordinators to organize the project over the coming year. If you would like to be considered as a candidate, please submit your nomination by 14 September. If you have any questions, do not hesitate to contact one of the current coordinators on their talk page. This message was delivered here because you are a member of the Military history WikiProject. – Military history coordinators (about the project • what coordinators do) 09:18, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 10 September 2012

Yosemite Hantavirus

Please check this out: http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/06/health/yosemite-campers-hantavirus/index.html?iref=allsearch ..and then please also check this out: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/zombie-alert-issued-homeland-security-article-1.1154245 (the Zombie alert you had brought up was just a humorous tactic to alert the public of threats far more important!--it wasn't meant to be taken for real--even I could tell!) 173.63.176.93 (talk) 14:48, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Airelor (talk) wishes you peace!

Spread peace and goodwill by adding {{subst:WikiPeace}} to other's talk pages with a friendly message.

I first went to Yosemite National Park when I was 3 years old. Hiking up part one side of its rocky terrain with my family and friends so that we could meet a truck that would meet us at our destination with cold ice cream. However, things didn't work out so well for me. Instead, there is a photograph of me crying at our destination as a squirrel eats the ice cream that fell off my cone. I'm pretty sure a cousin or uncle of mine gave me some of their ice cream to eat after that.

The point is, I'm not trying to attack Yosemite Park. I have fond memories of being there and do not want to destroy its reputation anymore than you do. If the Hantavirus risk at Yosemite is a hoax like you claim it is, I still think it has enough exposure to merit mention. Even the Centers_for_Disease_Control_and_Prevention mentions and links to its joke Preparedness_101:_Zombie_Apocalypse Blog Post. Airelor (talk) 17:31, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

It's not that the deaths are a hoax, but that the mention of these few deaths in the article gives them too much weight for the overall article. What point is there for including these deaths, and not all the others?--JOJ Hutton 17:40, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Lilith Sternin

Talk:Lilith Sternin/Archive 1#Changing scope of this article again without merging? is closed as "no consensus" to... I don't know what drmies meant. However, it seems to him that I was proposing a version, and he said that the current version is similar to the failed proposed one. Is he right on this? If so, must I revert everything back to this? --George Ho (talk) 11:44, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Re: Innocence of Muslims ‎

This is a content issue and should broached on the article talk page
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Sources don't question the full length version exists

On the contrary, all we know is that a 14 minute YouTube video exists, and many sources question whether the full length version of the "film" actually exists.[8] There isn't any person who has come forward to claim that they have seen such a film. Furthermore, the person who claimed the showing occurred and that 10 people attended has turned out to be an unreliable source who was a consultant to the project. So, you're wrong. Viriditas (talk) 14:08, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Attack on the U.S. Diplomatic mission in Benghazi

You reasoning for the move back got cut off. Please state in the talk page and let's discuss. Thanks. — Hasdi Bravo • 16:53, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I responded on the articles talk pageJOJ Hutton 17:01, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

The Beatles poll

Hello Jojhutton; this message is to inform you that there is currently a public poll to determine whether to capitalize the definite article ("the") when mentioning the band "THE BEATLES" mid-sentence. As you've previously participated either here, here, or here, your input would be appreciated. Thank you for your time. Jburlinson (talk) 21:03, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

RFC discussion of User:Rtmcrrctr

A request for comments has been filed concerning the conduct of Rtmcrrctr (talk · contribs). You are invited to comment on the discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Rtmcrrctr. -- Homunq (talk) 13:40, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 September 2012

Obama

I feel like you and I are the only folk left there who value article quality. It's a triumph of Wikipolitics over principles at the moment. --John (talk) 05:34, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

We're not the only ones, we are just the only ones who they haven't been able to drive away with incessant accusations of sock puppetry. --JOJ Hutton 11:36, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
And yet there are good people there, acting with good intentions. They have just got into a mindset which makes it incredibly hard to actually improve the article. --John (talk) 22:00, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Signing Posts???

Seriously?? I AM signing my posts. Four tildes everytime Edu Lady - Researcher 00:43, 23 September 2012 (UTC). Thank you for pointing out something I am already doing. Edu Lady - Researcher 00:43, 23 September 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Educatedlady (talk • contribs)

Beverly Hills, again

For reasons explained at Talk:Beverly_Hills,_California#Premature_close, I've opened a new RM request/discussion at Talk:Beverly Hills,_California#Requested move. You're receiving this notice because you participated in the last one. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:36, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 September 2012

The Signpost: 01 October 2012

YNP Hantavirus Discussion

I was recently approached by a user / users, with regards to possible edits to the Yosemite National Park article on Wikipedia. Link to this discussion follows:

Hello, Jojhutton. You have new messages at Edit Centric's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Maybe I should've made it clearer in my first post here, which is now gone, that I wasn't trying to personally attack you. I didn't and still don't fully know how Wikipedia rules are usually interpreted and regulated. However, I think the way you were regulating Yosemite_National_Park was really bordering on too personal. See Wikipedia:BITE and Wikipedia:AGF if that helps, which I found while researching how to best write an article for my draft-edit User:Airelor/Yosemite_National_Park. Unfortunately, linking to articles in this manner doesn't really help a newcomer like me, because even though I can read it, I don't know what the general consensus already is of interpreting these long-winded guidelines. Especially with a controversial topic like Wikipedia:Recentism, which makes a case for doing and not doing while referencing at least 3 other Wiki debates in the same article. You might be lucky and get newcomers willing to learn more, ask others, and own up to their mistakes. More likely, you'll get people "vandalizing" in response, because they don't know better and think you are leading some sort of Senior Editors Conspiracy like User_talk:173.63.176.93. I know people who won't join Wikipedia, because they've read so many news articles saying its all a helpless conspiracy even if that isn't the case.
I realize now why the Hantavirus issue is not significant enough to be put on the Yosemite_National_Park page. Even though, it seemed to significant to me on a national health standpoint, I wasn't an expert or well-read enough on the topic to know about the incident with the 3 hikers before or about the ongoing situation in person like User:Edit_Centric does. Although it was very unfortunate for Yosemite National Park that the 3 hikers lost their lives there last summer, there was and is still no evidence linking the incident to improper management of the Park. Similarly, there isn't enough information out there yet to conclusively say that the Hantavirus cases were directly caused by any of Yosemite National Park's improper management of their mice, tents, or other plants, animals, and habitats. I understand that now and I'm sorry for any extra trouble or grief I may have caused you.
Sincerely,
Airelor (talk) 17:19, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXVIII, September 2012

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project and/or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Nick-D (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:43, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 08 October 2012

You're invited! FemTech Edit-a-Thon at Claremont Graduate University

October 26 - FemTech Edit-a-Thon & Roundtable - You are invited!
Everyone is invited to the first FemTech Edit-a-Thon & Roundtable at Claremont Graduate University on October 26 from 3-6 pm. The event will open with a roundtable discussion about feminism and anti-racist technology projects, followed by an edit-a-thon focusing on feminists & women in science. Experienced Wikipedians will be on hand to support new editors. We hope you can join us!

Sign up here - see you there! 01:07, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Lance Armstrong

I just wanted to point out that the edits you reverted had been discussed on the talk page for two days and had received 100% consensus by the five editors participating in the discussion. I realize the edits looked scary on the surface (removing paragraphs from the Lead) but they were needed in my opinion, since the Lead was far too long, and a walking BLP violation (IMO). Either way, I'd like to invite you to participate in the talk page discussion. The thread is here. ~Adjwilley (talk) 18:37, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 15 October 2012

The Bugle: Issue LXXIX, October 2012

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Nick-D (talk) and Ian Rose (talk) 02:40, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 22 October 2012

The Signpost: 29 October 2012

The Signpost: 05 November 2012

The Signpost: 12 November 2012

Documents at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library and Museum

hi

I work at the Gerald Ford Presidential Library and Museum, and we are uploading materials to Wikimedia Commons. We have a number of documents that might be of interest to you - they are located at Wikimedia, Category:Documents at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library and Museum.

If you are interested in writing articles/stubs, I may be able to provide you with pictures from our archives as well. We have a limited number of artifacts, to also at Wikimedia, Category:Artifacts at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library and Museum.

Let me know if I can help in any way, and please feel free to pass the word about these docs; I'd love to see some content generated around them....thanks! Bdcousineau (talk) 19:37, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 19 November 2012

The Signpost: 26 November 2012

The Bugle: Issue LXXX, November 2012

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 01:33, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia Loves Libraries Seattle

Decemmber 8 - Wikipedia Loves Libraries Seattle - You're invited
Seattle Public Library
  • Date Saturday, December 8, 2012
  • Time 10 a.m. – 3 p.m.
  • Location Seattle Public Library Meeting Room 1 on Level 4, Central Library, 1000 4th Avenue, Seattle WA, 98104
  • Event An editathon on Seattle-related Wikipedia articles with Wikipedia tutorials and Librarian assistance on hand.
  • Hashtag #wikiloveslib or #glamwiki.
  • Registration http://wll-seattle.eventbrite.com or use on-wiki regsistration.

Yours, Maximilianklein (talk) 03:52, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 03 December 2012

The Signpost: 10 December 2012

The Signpost: 17 December 2012

The Bugle: Issue LXXXI, December 2012

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 09:14, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 December 2012

The Signpost: 31 December 2012

Main page appearance: Richard Nixon

This is a note to let the main editors of Richard Nixon know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on January 9, 2013. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/January 9, 2013. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask featured article director Raul654 (talk · contribs) or his delegates Dabomb87 (talk · contribs), Gimmetoo (talk · contribs), and Bencherlite (talk · contribs), or start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you can change it—following the instructions at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/instructions. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. The blurb as it stands now is below:

Richard Nixon

Richard Nixon (1913–1994) was the 37th President of the United States, serving from 1969 to 1974. He graduated from Whittier College in 1934 and Duke University School of Law in 1937, returning to California to practice law. He served in the United States Navy during World War II. Nixon was elected to the House of Representatives in 1946 and to the Senate in 1950. He served for eight years as vice president, from 1953 to 1961, and waged an unsuccessful presidential campaign in 1960, narrowly losing to John F. Kennedy. In 1968, Nixon ran again for president and was elected. He initially escalated the Vietnam War, but ended US involvement in 1973. Nixon's visit to the People's Republic of China in 1972 opened diplomatic relations between the two nations. Though he presided over Apollo 11, he scaled back manned space exploration. He was re-elected by a landslide in 1972 despite a series of revelations in the Watergate scandal, which cost Nixon much of his political support in his second term, and on August 9, 1974 he resigned as president. In retirement, Nixon's work as an elder statesman, authoring several books and undertaking many foreign trips, helped to rehabilitate his public image. (Full article...)

UcuchaBot (talk) 23:02, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 07 January 2013

The Signpost: 14 January 2013

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Homeward Bound: The Incredible Journey, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Gary Taylor (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) 11:16, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXII, January 2013

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 13:11, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 21 January 2013

The Signpost: 28 January 2013

The Signpost: 04 February 2013

The Signpost: 11 February 2013

The Signpost: 18 February 2013

The Bugle: Issue LXXXIII, February 2013

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 07:27, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 February 2013

IP block exemption

Hello. I want to let you know that I have removed IP block exemption from your account as it does not appear to be necessary at this time. If, in the future, you are unable to edit due to another account's block, feel free to request IPBE again. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 19:32, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 04 March 2013

The Signpost: 11 March 2013

The Signpost: 18 March 2013

The Bugle: Issue LXXXIV, March 2013

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 03:57, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 March 2013

The Signpost: 01 April 2013

The Signpost: 08 April 2013

The Signpost: 15 April 2013

San Diego Comic-Con International meetup proposal

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Meetup/LA/SDCC1. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:20, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXV, April 2013

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 15:21, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 22 April 2013