Jump to content

User talk:Jojhutton/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5→Archive 9

Administrators' Notice Board

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Omnedon (talk) 17:16, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

And guess what the issue is? I've weighed in there. It's a little clumsier but instead of "don't stalk me", saying something like "please don't mass-revert my edits" would probably go over better without compromising the message. I do pretty much agree with you as a content matter. Cheers, - Wikidemon (talk) 21:36, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
I read what you wrote and I appreciate the vote of confidence. For the record though, I did ask the editor to politely stop reverting my edits. Then there is his entire week devoted to me and my edits. It was only after being hounded over and over again with questions that I had already answered, when I decided to close the discussions that he would not stop opening.--Jojhutton (talk) 21:43, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
Then there is the possible canvassing, here], and here. I call it possible because I really don't know. The wording seems to be nuetral, but he only sent messages to users who support his position.--Jojhutton (talk) 21:51, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
I'm still assuming good faith so I'll just let you know where I stand, especially as I'm one of the editors who was advised of the ANI. True, he sent the message to "users who support his position", but it could also be said that he sent messages to users who have recently commented to you, and he sent the messages only to the most recent two. He could have gone through the other discussions and picked out more editors to "canvas", but he didn't do that. As far as canvasing goes, it's quite restrained. I thought the situation had kind of been resolved, but I have a number of articles on my watchlist, including Marilyn Monroe and when I saw that edit, I did look at your recent edit history to see if there were any other edits of a similar nature, and I would have checked from time to time to see if you had resumed making mass edits as you were a week ago. I would have noticed the ANI with or without the notification. Rossrs (talk) 23:38, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
Jojhutton, as Rossrs points out, I sent the notification to two users who had been actively involved in the situation recently, as I believed they would wish to know of the ongoing discussion; I could hardly have sent it to users who had supported your actions on your talk page, because as far as I can see there are none of those. I gave up asking questions of you for the simple reason that they were never really answered. I would say, however, that I'm sure your intent here is to improve the encyclopedia; that should surely be the primary goal of any dedicated editor, and I certainly do not exclude you from that. But where there is disagreement on how best to do that, we need to talk about it. As for my own activity, I go through periods where I do a lot of editing on articles in which I am interested, and periods where I do very little editing for a variety of reasons. Just recently I've done very little editing, but I still watch the articles on my watchlist, some of which (like townships) are watched by relatively few editors. Omnedon (talk) 05:54, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XIV (November 2009)

The November 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject 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.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 18:51, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

FAQ Un-endorsement

Resolved with the editor
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I think you're misunderstanding WP:PLACE#United States. That is the guideline for "determining the names of Wikipedia articles", not their usage in other articles, and doesn't say anything special for the United States that it doesn't also say for other countries. For example, see WP:PLACE#New Zealand which refers the reader to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (New Zealand), which gives the following example: "If a New Zealand place name is unique (or likely to be unique) in the world, then it alone is used as the article's title - (for example, Otorohanga)". That does not mean that a different article that hasn't already established it's talking about New Zealand should just say "John Smith grew in Otorohanga" -- clearly it should say "John Smith grew up in Otorohanga, New Zealand".

I also think you misunderstood my comment on WP:ANI as endorsing your view. It seems to have fallen flat, but it was, in fact, an attempt to point out that just as we don't expect readers outside Canada to know about Nunavut, similarly we shouldn't expect readers outside the United States to know all the 50 US states. (As Baseball Bugs observed, enough people in the United States aren't clear on the concept either.[1])

Finally, I don't think geological means what you think it means. Perhaps you intended geographical? --GRuban (talk) 22:10, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 21 December 2009

Solana Beach, California

You've once again removed "United States" from a geographical article, even while your behavior is being discussed at ANI. Your edit summary claims, "because there is no convention that says otherwise". The "United States" link has been present in the lead sentence for years, just as it has with literally thousands of other articles. In an international encyclopedia, the nation should be specified, not assumed. Please stop this activity unless you can somehow justify it. If you can justify it, please do so before proceeding. Omnedon (talk) 04:58, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Be careful not to get too far ahead of yourself. Your "behavior" has been very questionable of late.--Jojhutton (talk) 05:42, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the quick revert on my user page. =) -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 23:29, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Your very welcome.--Jojhutton (talk) 23:31, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 28 December 2009

Hey!

I just noticed you made this[2] revert for me, albeit it was a while back, but thank you anyway! :) -CamT|C 07:40, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I guess it was a while back. Its no problem.--Jojhutton (talk) 14:20, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLVI (December 2009)

The December 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject 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.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 03:34, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Ravens

User must have really needed to get in the last word
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

For what it's worth, you were wrong. The Pats would play the Ravens no matter what happened in the NYJ-CIN game. If the Bengals won, they would have gotten the 3 seed, the Pats the 4 seed. The Bengals would then have played the Texans as the 6th seed, and the Pats would have played the Ravens as the 5th seed. Since the Jets won, the Pats are now the 3 seed, the Bengals the 4 seed, the Jets the 5 seed, and the Ravens the 6 seed. The Texans lose the tiebreaker to the Ravens (Ravens just needed to win to get in), therefore the Ravens would have been the 5th seed and would have played the Pats. You were wrong, I'm sorry. Pats1 T/C 15:28, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 1 January 2010

Service awards proposal

Master Editor Hello, Jojhutton/Archive 3! I noticed you display a service award, and would like to invite you to join the discussion over a proposed revamping of the awards.

If you have any opinions on the proposal, please participate in the discussion. Thanks! — the Man in Question (in question) 22:12, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Practical joke

Thanks for the sympathy of your message, good vibes, greetings to you. Ccrazymann (talk) 19:39, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Haa, truth if they bring a lot of problems "dislike" the use of these. A hug for you, regards. Ccrazymann (talk) 10:50, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 11 January 2010

The Wikipedia Signpost: 18 January 2010

Deletions from 'Global warming' talk page.

You are not the only one to object to rapid deletions (and archiving) of material from this talk page. Martin Hogbin (talk) 20:58, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I am not taking sides, but I do not like to see dicussions archived or deleted, just because others do not agree with them.--Jojhutton (talk) 21:15, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
What do you mean by 'taking sides'? I am also against rapid archiving or deletion on talk pages. Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:03, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
Then we are in agreement.--Jojhutton (talk) 22:04, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
You will have noted that, even while enforcement is being requested against this practise, it is continuing and the perpetrators are openly congratulating each other. I can't believe many people would have sanctioned that censorship. I certainly would not have done, it is beyond simple discourteous behaviour. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 15:11, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
The archiving was performed after discussion with LessHeard VanU on what would be the most appropriate way to deal with comments that were clearly not aimed at improving the article. The result was to endorse the procedure outlined in the WP:TALK guideline, with a courteous note at the talk page of the originator saying why it has been archived. So that's what I did. --TS 15:34, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
The obvious problem with that is who gets to decide what is appropriate or not? Its a the same problem as before, only sugar coated. Its best just to leave the comments alone. If a user doesn't agree, either say so, or don't comment. But apperantly, if one protests, they are accused of being ignorant.--Jojhutton (talk) 16:08, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
I'll go with LessHeard VanU's advice and the Talk page guidelines. Cases of inappropriate archiving or unarchiving can easily be handled at Wikipedia:General_sanctions/Climate_change_probation/Requests_for_enforcement. Talk:Global warming is the talk page of a featured article on a scientific subject. The constant drip of off-topic material damages the atmosphere and at times makes it very difficult to find discussions that are actually aimed at improving the article. --TS 16:12, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
It's not removing off-topic material that's a problem, it's the constant removal (archiving, collapsing) of so much relevant material that offends so many people. Or telling them they're a "stuck record" for trying to get changes to an article that's making a lot of people very unhappy. I thought you were going to remove that personal attack from my page, not use it as proof to others that I'm some kind of problem editor. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 18:06, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Nazi Germany

I tried to revert the latest addition (someone added their userpage contents) but a bot signed the addition and meant I had to undo two things instead of one and before I got to the second you managed to delete it anyway. Thanks for that, sorry if I got in the way. Weakopedia (talk) 13:56, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Looks like we were both on top of our game today. Good job. Cheers.--Jojhutton (talk) 13:58, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 25 January 2010

Mentorship

I write because your name is listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject User Rehab. I wonder if you might consider joining others in sharing the burden of a mentorship committee for me?

Perhaps you might consider taking a look at an old edit at Wikipedia:Mentorship#Unintended consequences? In the search for a mentor deemed acceptable by ArbCom, I cite this as a plausible context for discussing what I have in mind.

Please contact me by e-mail or on my talk page. --Tenmei (talk) 06:45, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 1 February 2010

??

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I said "Unconstructive?: That's debatable." How does that qualify as an attack? Please tell me in your own words, instead of copying and pasting an answer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.170.55.252 (talk) 03:19, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLVII (January 2010)

The January 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject 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.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 03:55, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 8 February 2010

Talk:Harvey Dorfman

A recent rollback of yours restored libellous material to this page (it has now been deleted). This is a really serious issue. To encourage you to slow down when patrolling recent changes, I've removed the rollback right from your account. This is intended to be temporary and I intend to restore it in a few days. Stifle (talk) 11:11, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any record of what I may have allegedly done wrong, since it has been convienently erased from the record. I can't even defend myself at ANI, which I plan to try anyway.--Jojhutton (talk) 11:48, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
You did a rollback of someone who blanked libellous accusations from the talk page. Stifle (talk) 11:57, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
If you wish to take it to ANI, please do, and I will defer to the consensus there (and hereby authorize any admin who feels that your rollback right should be restored to restore it without reference to me). For admins' convenience, this is a link to the rollback in question. Stifle (talk) 11:58, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Its at ANI now, but the question is, how was it removed before I rolled it back?--Jojhutton (talk) 12:07, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Someone blanked it, and you restored it. Stifle (talk) 12:16, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Was there an edit summery on the deit before mine?--Jojhutton (talk) 12:23, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
It was an AES, "(←Blanked the page)". That being said, you can't simply indiscriminately roll back blankings, sometimes pages are blanked - even by newbies - for good reason. I don't see an issue restoring rollback if you take care in the future to ensure what you are restoring isn't problematic. –xenotalk 12:27, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
the problem still remains, for me at least, that blanking pages without an edit summery is wrong. The other problem is that I still have no clue as to what was restored, nor will 95% of the wikipedians who viwe this thread. Seems like I'm being led to my slaughter, without even knowing why. Hard to defen myself against invisible charges.--Jojhutton (talk) 12:42, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
You restored a highly libelous BLP violation that was blanked without edit summary and let the automate warning against page blanking on the talk page of the user who did blank it. And at the risk of making unfounded assumptions, you most probably saw the automated message "Blanked the page" and reverted without checking.
It happens, but at this stage, you might consider switching to "Oops, I completely missed that one, I'll be more careful in the future" rather than playing the victim of an admin cabal and blaming it on the user who blanked a BLP violation, regardless of edit summary usage. Just my 2 cents of course. MLauba (talk) 13:30, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
I agree. I can see myself doing something like this, as obviously it seems suspicious. But I would definitely have been chagrined had I readded libellous material. No, you may not see what that material is now as it is... libellous! I can assure you that it won't be readded, ever. I think that it would be a good idea to follow MLauba's suggestion and admit it was a mistake. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 15:06, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
←Just to let you know User:Tanthalas39 has restored your rollback. Stifle (talk) 19:19, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Welcome back to the squeegee. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 00:57, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Although I am grateful to get the rollback tool back, I feel that I have one more thing to say.
In the past few days I have recieved several personal e-mails from various admins on this site. Although the text of each e-mail was different, the idea of them all was the same. They all seemed to think that I should just admit that I made a mistake and apologize. One of the e-mails, although cordial in its wording, was threatening in its nature. Demanding that I admit I was wrong or else I may have difficulty in the future.
I have only one thing to say to those out there who want me to admit that I made a mistake. How can I acknowledge that I did anything wrong, when I can't even see it? This is not like most mistakes that some may make on wikipedia, where a user is shown a thread, and they can look at it, and see where they went wrong. No this is much different. This is more like someone telling me I did something wrong, then when I ask what I did, I'm told that they can't tell me, but trust us you were wrong. I wouldn't expect anyone in the world to admit to anything like this, especially in this manner, on or off wikipedia. I know that wikipedia isn't a court of law, but I am still a human being with the same feelings and emotions as anyone else.
Others have argued that I just reverted the page without looking at it. That I somehow blindly rolled back a page, just because I misunderstand how rollback works. This too is false, but it is impossible for me to defend against these particular accusations, since again, I can't see the thread.
I no longer feel that I can fairly justify what happened, so I have decided to take a different road and practice a form of Passive resistance.
This is why I have decided to silence myself for a full week. Mostly out of the content of many of the e-mails that I recieved, and secondly out of the fact that many want me to admit to doing something wrong, that I can't even verify happened.
I am not doing this to be bitter. I am not bitter, although many may see this as so. Actually I feel really good about myself right now, but I am doing it to show how wrong it is to silence users who are somehow guilty, even when the evidence can't be seen.
I hope to be back in a week. I may come back with a vengence, or I may go out with a whimper. Either way, it is clear that I am not wanted at this time, so thanks for those who supported me, and see you all in a week.--Jojhutton (talk) 00:48, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Mentorship

Your page history will show that I asked you to be a mentor in late January -- see diff. Please construe it as meaningful that I renew my earnest invitation now. In a context established by the 2005 Nobel Prize in Economics, you point-of-view is wanted.

This is a time for hortatory concepts. Do you know this one?

"I am only one, but I am one. I can not do everything, but I can do something.
I must not fail to do the something that I can do."

If Wikiquote:Helen Keller#Misattributed is to believed, then I am not alone in linking these words with Helen Keller. The salient question becomes this: Does precise attribution matter in the context of a teachable moment? No – not always.

Two rakan evoke a teachable moment, searching together for timely focal point?

Even if you decide to abandon other Wikipedia activities, please consider joining the mentorship group I'm tying to create. Core policies are the tools at hand; and if you agree to help connect the dots, it could benefit more than me.

In today's context, perhaps a sentence I posted in December will seem revealing:

"Among a prospective mentor's many burdens, the most difficult would involve (a) helping me discern why or when I should apologize or (b) helping me to explain why or when I will not apologize in a wiki-context -- see diff.

I can offer an on-topic writing sample? As you think about agreeing to join a mentorship committee, please review Patrick Lennox Tierney#Showa apology rebuffed. As someone living in San Diego County, it may interest you that Tierney was involved in the reconstruction of the Japanese Garden in San Deigo's Balboa Park.

If you please, contact me by e-mail or on my talk page. --Tenmei (talk) 15:46, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Shortcut
Jojhutton -- I didn't reach out to you randomly in January, nor now.
Sharpening the focus, I have stricken all but three sentences above; and I re-post and number them here:
1. Your page history will show that I asked you to be a mentor in late January -- see diff.
2. Core policies are the tools at hand; and if you agree to help connect the dots, it could benefit more than me.
3. Among a prospective mentor's many burdens, the most difficult would involve (a) helping me discern why or when I should apologize or (b) helping me to explain why or when I will not apologize in a wiki-context -- see diff.
Shortcut
If you please, you might better understand what I'm asking if you will review WP:A/R/C#Statement by Tenmei, especially
A. Response to Steven Smith
B. Response to Coren
C. Response to Roger Davies
In recognition of the time you invest reading this, please accept two quotes as unexpected gifts. I hope you find them timely and arguably useful.
  • "Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts" — attributed to Daniel Patrick Moynihan; variants: (a) "Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts" — quoted in Robert Sobel's review of Past Imperfect: History According to the Movies edited by Mark C. Carnes; (b) "You are entitled to your own opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts" — quoted in Timothy J. Penny, Facts Are Facts, National Review September 4, 2003; (c) "You’re entitled to your own opinions. You’re not entitled to your own facts" &mdsh; Ellen Hume, Tabloids, Talk Radio and the Future of News, part 4 (TOC), 1995 cites this as something Moynihan said to a "1994 electoral opponent on WNBC in New York".
  • "Truth is generally the best vindication against slander." — Abraham Lincoln, , responding to complaint about Montgomery Blair, Postmaster-General, in Bartlett's Familiar Quotations, 10th ed. (1919); John Hay, Abraham Lincoln: A History (1890)
"Truth is generally the best vindication" – full text of letter in which quote appears
July 14,1864.— Letter To Secretary Stanton.
Executive Mansion, Washington, July 14,1864. Hon. Secretary of War.
Sir: Your note of to-day inclosing General Halleck's letter of yesterday relative to offensive remarks supposed to have been made by the Postmaster-General concerning the military officers on duty about Washington is received. The general's letter in substance demands of me that if I approve the remarks I shall strike the names of those officers from the rolls; and that if I do not approve them the Postmaster-General shall be dismissed from the Cabinet
Whether the remarks were really made I do not know, nor do I suppose such knowledge is necessary to a correct response. If they were made, I do not approve them; and yet, under the circumstances, I would not dismiss a member of the Cabinet therefor. I do not consider what may have been hastily said in a moment of vexation at so severe a loss is sufficient ground for so grave a step. Besides this, truth is generally the best vindication against slander. I propose continuing to be myself the judge as to when a member of the Cabinet shall be dismissed. Yours truly, A. Lincoln in Abraham Lincoln: Complete Works, Vol. II, pp. 547-548 (1907).
If you are disinterested in a role in the cohort of ArbCom-approved "public mentors," perhaps you might be willing or able to be a non-public mentor/advisor? --Tenmei (talk) 20:28, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 15 February 2010

Unnecessary

And its never ok to fabricate facts to fit your point of view
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

The Brett Favre comment referring to Radiopathy was unnecessary: there's no need to pile on and the comment has no bearing on the matter at hand. Radiopathy has his issues, but he is free to retire and unretire as often as he wants. Given you've got a brief retirement in your recent history, I'd think you would understand. — John Cardinal (talk) 17:27, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Not that I care either way, but when did I retire and unretire?--Jojhutton (talk) 18:52, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
You didn't call it retiring, but you took a self-imposed break from 10 February to 18 February after being "bullied." — John Cardinal (talk) 00:06, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
Well thats differant than retiring isn't it. Some call it a wiki break. You really shouldn't change the facts to fit an argument.
Also, you may note that Radiopathy seem to have a retirement history (1st retirement, 2nd retirement, 3rd retirement), that corrosponds with his block log. He always seems to want to return. Its no harm. Its just his way.
BTW, if I really decided to retire, you would never see me again.--Jojhutton (talk) 00:19, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
I didn't change the facts to fit an argument. I tried to remind you of your having felt bullied to sensitize you to Radiopathy's feelings. He was wrong, and he deserved to be blocked, but he was acting in good faith: he sincerely thought he was helping the encyclopedia. He didn't need you to jump in at the end—after the end, in fact—and add your petty insult. It's OK to complain about bullies; it's not OK to be one. — John Cardinal (talk) 04:22, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Global warming

Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia! In case you are not already aware, an article to which you have recently contributed, Global warming, is on article probation. A detailed description of the terms of article probation may be found at Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation. Also note that the terms of some article probations extend to related articles and their associated talk pages.

The above is a templated message. Please accept it as a routine friendly notice, not as a claim that there is any problem with your edits. Thank you. -- TS 22:12, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 22 February 2010

Nominations for the March 2010 Military history Project Coordinator elections now open!

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on 8 March 2010! More information on coordinatorship may be found on the coordinator academy course and in the responsibilities section on the coordinator page.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:47, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

recentism and the whale

Hello - saw your comment on the Tilikum orca article's AFD regarding wp:recentism, and was wondering if you could help throw your two cents into a rather lengthy discussion regarding amusement park accident articles over at Talk:Incidents_at_SeaWorld_parks. We're having a discussion that was prompted from last week's Orca incident, and it mirrors similar discussions we've had in the past that came immediately upon the Monorail accident at Disney, and the Tower accident in Kentucky. Some editors feel that including victim names that are suddenly in the news is important to WP, while editors who have been maintaining the Incidents pages say that the victim names are secondary to the articles' focus on the incidents themselves. Recentism seems to apply here, and even though I am solicting your input because of a related statement you made, your unbiased opinion on the topic would be appreciated if you have the time to read the lengthy discussion. Thanks in advance. SpikeJones (talk) 04:20, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 1 March 2010

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLVIII (February 2010)

The February 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject 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.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:40, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

John Albert Gardner

What policy are you talking about? Two experienced editors have agreed the article does not have enough substance to support a separate article. I also asked you what you were referring to when you mentioned something about a AfD in the edit summary, yet you have ignored the question. Can you please tell me how an AfD relates to this merge. ttonyb (talk) 16:40, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I too am not a newbie. Yet, having a large edit count does not give anyone the right to bypass policy. An article that it written by anyone, regardless of edit count, deserves a chance to be created. As far as AFD goes, a redirect of an article is a de facto deletion of the article.--Jojhutton (talk) 16:56, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, however, I still do not understand what policy you are talking about. AfDs are not used for merges and merges are not de facto deletions of articles, actually merges are seen as an alternative to deletion. I suggest you re-read the sections on AfD for clarification before citing "the use of AfDs for merges" as policy. So, again, what policy are you referring to? ttonyb (talk) 17:30, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 8 March 2010

Wikiquette alerts

Is the incivility issue I presented about User:Mad Hatter going to be resolved? It seems as if it is being neglected and not being handled quickly like other incivility issues are. You seem to be the only user who payed any attention.--James-Carmaker1 (talk) 22:03, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I feel your pain. I even reported him to ANI, but it too was ignored.--Jojhutton (talk) 01:43, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your help. I really do question why that is happening, despite our efforts. I'll get back to you if anything happens.Carmaker1 (talk) 21:26, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks--Jojhutton (talk) 23:44, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

--Jojhutton (talk) 12:21, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

You might to look at the Chat 1 Warning as it pertains to talkheaders at the top to article talkpages re: Talk:California

The Chat 1 warn, as per the top of a talkpage (which is called a talkheader aka {{talkheader}}) reads: talk pages are for discussion related to improving the article, not general discussion about the topic. This diff definitely does not improve the article and is considered a test edit on any page.

The next three by the next anonymous IP, next diff are usually considered a rant (when a user shouts in capital letters). His comment does not improve the article either because it violates [[Wikipedia:No original research|no original research] and again does not improve the article. Instead it suggest a very narrow POV that violates neutral point of view as it is border-line racism.

I had another article I had to revert and was about to cite those anon IPs and then saw your revert. If you can live with, then something is wrong here on Wikipedia. Thanks for your keen observation. --Morenooso (talk) 02:57, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

If its not outright vandalism, then it is improper to remove a comment. The first diff was vandalism and it was cought up with the revert. Sorry about that one.--Jojhutton (talk) 03:16, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
You messed up on both. If you review the page, you will see I edit regularly as I am a Task Member of the California. The wikiproject does not allow those types of garbage to exist on our pages. Additionally, I visit lots of other talkpages, constanty rating articles and cleaning up comments like this. My revert is a very common one that Admins and other page patrollers make.
Except for some inexperienced users, who reverted me and then were reverted by others because I have a great history of reverts, I haven't been reverted or dismissed as per you.
Your apology is not accepted because you don't know what you are doing on a talkpage with a revert like this.
You should reverted yourself and you know it. --Morenooso (talk) 03:35, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Seems that you should let it go. Don't get so riled up over this one revert. Its not the end of the world, although you sure seem to act that way. Then perhaps read WP:Own, because that is just how you came off, whether you knew it or not.--Jojhutton (talk) 12:21, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 15 March 2010

Coordinator elections have opened!

Voting for the Military history WikiProject coordinator elections has opened; all users are encouraged to participate in the elections. Voting will conclude 23:59 (UTC) on 28 March 2010.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:58, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 22 March 2010

Carlsbad

Hi! I noticed you removed the San Diego Portal link from Carlsbad, California here with the rationale "Not San Diego"

But the portal covers everything in San Diego County and Carlsbad is in the San Diego area.

Please understand that the portal link needs to be in every and all San Diego County articles. Kindly do not remove them again. WhisperToMe (talk) 02:46, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

  • And I found this edit - If you systematically removed portals from articles about SD suburbs, that is bad. The portal needs to be in every San Diego county article, and by removing them because of "not in San Diego" (even though they are in San Diego County) = The San Diego portal is being deprived of page views that it would get WhisperToMe (talk) 03:07, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
    • Alright - I systematically reversed the edits from January so they all have the SD Portal again.
    • See, the entire San Diego Metropolitan Area consists of one county - San Diego County - everything in that county needs the SD portal - even things not in the city limits
    • Because of the way California cities incorporated, it makes little sense to restrict things to only the city. School districts, movement of people, etc. cross city boundaries. You can't really separate the city from the county.
    • WhisperToMe (talk) 03:21, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
The portal is clearly for the city of San Diego and does not seem to include the entire county. The flag that is represented is also the flag for the city of San Diego. Your reverts are uncalled for.--Jojhutton (talk) 04:00, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
Even though the portal is called "San Diego," has the San Diego flag, and the content mostly relates to the city, it's still intended for the whole county. Also, if you are wondering, the "Los Angeles" portal is intended for all of LA County and all of Orange County.
The general trend for metropolitan area portals and projects is that they take the name of the dominant city and use the seals and flags of the dominant city, even though they in fact cover the entire area
And in particular, relating to the layout of California cities, it would be a very complicated and tiring task to try to separate "San Diego" from "the suburbs" because school districts overlap, because county services overlap, culture overlaps, etc. ::::WhisperToMe (talk) 12:31, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
I see no evidence in the portal page that suggests that you are correct. Every part of the portal pertains to the city of San Diego, and not the county. The flag, map, communities, and links are all in the city. It does not cover the county at all.--Jojhutton (talk) 01:33, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
This is the evidence. SoCAL LA is the author of the portal (The edit history shows this). Imperial Beach and Encinitas are both outside of the San Diego city limits.
More evidence - Coronado is outside of the San Diego city limits.
So, yeah, the San Diego Portal is definitely for the whole county
WhisperToMe (talk) 04:29, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
Then leave the rest of the county alone, because thats only a tiny portion of the portal, and the county is larger than the city. Undue weight in my book.--Jojhutton (talk) 11:59, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
Jojhutton, metropolitan areas are defined on a county by county basis in most of the United States, including California. Therefore all of SD County = SD Metro area = In scope for the portal = not "undue weight" as you claim.
Stop removing the portals. I am going to message SocalLA and tell him that you have been removing the portals - and he'll tell you that the portals are indeed meant for the whole county.
WhisperToMe (talk) 09:41, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
WhisperToMe (talk) 09:41, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
So you are going to canvass for support are you? Thats bad form.--Jojhutton (talk) 12:08, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Canvassing inappropriately would be messaging 20 thousand irrelevant people to try to sway support. I messaged one person, the author of the portal, asking him to back up everything I told you. He had the intent, so it is perfectly acceptable for me to tell him to tell you that, yes, Jojhutton, the portal is intended to cover all of San Diego County. He is the author, so he would know whether what I said is true or not, yes? It is crystal clear. My messaging was correct and proper, Jojhutton. Also this isn't a "this is a dispute over whether something ought to happen, so one side needs to canvass to let everyone debate whether something should be done" - this is a "this user is removing templates from articles despite being told repeatedly that the template is intended for those articles, and he needs to stop" kind of message. If you want the portal to only cover San Diego, then you can start a talk page discussion about it. Canvassing is defined as "sending messages to Wikipedians with the intent to inform them about a community discussion." - this isn't a community discussion. This is a message to let the author of the portal tell you that, yes, the portal is intended to cover San Diego County. WhisperToMe (talk) 12:24, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Then we'll see what happens at the message board for canvassing. --Jojhutton (talk) 12:34, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
And where is this "message board for canvassing"? WhisperToMe (talk) 12:35, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
I looked, but I guess there isn't one, so I guess this happens at ANI. (When I return from work).--Jojhutton (talk) 12:40, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Are you sure you want to use ANI? Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents is about conduct that requires immediate notice of other administrators. If you want to ask "well does this constitute canvassing?" then I'll take the perogative and start the discussion. WhisperToMe (talk) 13:18, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia_talk:Canvassing#Is_this_canvassing.3F - I felt this was the best venue, and if it needs to be somewhere else, other users will say so. That way it won't wait until you come back from work. The discussion will start immediately. WhisperToMe (talk) 13:23, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 29 March 2010

but

but he keeps reverting my good faith edits.....i asked him politley not to at first, but he doesnt listen..... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seasemeseads (talk • contribs) 15:40, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

LA County

I said specifically on the Los Angeles task force that the task force covers BOTH Los Angeles and Orange Counties, and they are both in the Los Angeles MSA. The Los Angeles portal, accordingly, should be in all articles in all places regarding both counties.

Jojhutton, because the original creator of the task forces (he made both the Los Angeles and San Diego task forces) seems to be unavailable, I am going to start a discussion about this on Wikipedia:WikiProject California - I am going to state my positions, and I expect you to appear and state your positions.

Meanwhile, please do not touch any portals anywhere until the discussion is resolved. WhisperToMe (talk) 23:36, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Yorba Linda, California

I noticed you reverted my re-inclusion of Portal:Los Angeles in the Yorba Linda, California article. While I understand your objection that the city does not lie within the boundaries of Los Angeles County, the portal was created with a scope encompassing the entire LA metro area. If you wish to discuss the scope of the project, you may do so here. Until a consensus is reached there, however, articles related to the entire LA metro area will be included. Thanks Butros (talk) 20:34, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Portals in OC Cities

I would also like to invite you to comment on the use of portals in Orange County cities at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject California#Portals of Los Angeles and San Diego. It would be helpful to obtain a consensus on which portal to use, and your thoughts would be appreciated. Alanraywiki (talk) 15:25, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I reverted your edit to Anaheim, California in which you replaced the LA portal with the SoCal one. I urge you to join the discussion at WT:CAL#Portals of Los Angeles and San Diego. --TorriTorri(Talk to me!) 17:59, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

So you took out the So Cal portal, in lieu of the LA city portal? How much sense does that make? Why not add the NY City portal too?--Jojhutton (talk) 18:17, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you mean. For now I have placed both portals on the page. --TorriTorri(Talk to me!) 19:02, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
I saw, but I think that the winds are starting to blow in the direction of either retooling the LA Portal, or creating a new one for the OC.--Jojhutton (talk) 19:28, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Removal of Fact about Bush

I reworded the item about Bush ordering air attacks beyond Iraq's "no-fly" zone.

You have yet to give me one good reason why you keep removing the item. My guess is that you wish to protect Bush's legacy. --cgersten (talk)tuco_bad 20:53, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 5 April 2010

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLIX (March 2010)

The March 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject 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.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:01, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 12 April 2010


The Wikipedia Signpost: 19 April 2010

The Wikipedia Signpost: 26 April 2010

Los Angeles to Greater Los Angeles

Done with this thread
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

If you find any Portal:Los Angeles links in any Orange County articles, they should not be removed under any circumstances. However they do need to be converted to {{portal|Greater Los Angeles|HollywoodSign.jpg}} links.

Also all San Diego County-related articles must have the San Diego portal. WhisperToMe (talk) 22:45, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Since the content of the portal and the content of the articles are very different, they should be removed. Seems that your consensus of two wasn't a consensus at all, and you need to stop adding false information to articles.--Jojhutton (talk) 23:04, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
The consensus has been clearly hammered out at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_California#Portals_of_Los_Angeles_and_San_Diego - in favor of using Greater Los Angeles and San Diego to represent their metropolitan areas. Content of the portals (Greater Los Angeles and San Diego) clearly align. The only thing left to talk about regarding Greater Los Angeles is the portal icon, that is all.
Jojhutton, "Seems that your consensus of two wasn't a consensus at all" is flatly incorrect. The editors clearly agreed to use "Greater Los Angeles" after much debate. And "San Diego" was agreed by Butros. "and you need to stop adding false information to articles" is not only incorrect, but it is an inflammatory accusation.
I expect for you to understand and follow what I posted here. I also do not want to see any more silent removal of portals on your user contributions list. You are expected to add and keep those portals in those articles.
WhisperToMe (talk) 23:09, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Please do not dictate to me on what to do. I can read very clearly as to what the portals say. They say "the city". Both of them. Just besause you rename one portal and slap a new coat of paint on it, doesn't mean that you made it better. It just means that your trying to hide the truth, and the truth is that the portals are clearly "city-centric" towards both LA and San Diego, and do not apply to other cities and areas outside their boarders. If the portals were rewritten, that might make a difference. In fact, I thought that was were the discussion was headed before. Guess not. Go back and read the first line of each portal and tell me they apply to a broader base.--Jojhutton (talk) 23:15, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Jojhutton, if it is the content of the portals that is bothering you, then you are free to rewrite them. --TorriTorri(Talk to me!) 23:30, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Its not the content of the portals, but the placement in articles that have nothing to do with the portal. Yet perhaps a complete rewrite of the portals are in order. No objections?--Jojhutton (talk) 00:02, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Jojhutton, if you want to alter and or rewrite the portals to include more of the suburbs, then you are welcome to do so. Understand that, when a metro area is involved, the largest city is always dominant. The suburbs are like planets around the sun (the sun being the dominant city). They are all a part of a larger, more complex, metropolitan area. That doesn't mean that the metro area portal is irrelevant to an article about the suburb. Suburbs are to planets as Los Angeles is to the sun.
"but the placement in articles that have nothing to do with the portal." The articles have everything to do with the portals.
"It just means that your trying to hide the truth, and the truth is that the portals are clearly "city-centric" towards both LA and San Diego, and do not apply to other cities and areas outside their boarders. " - They are city-centric AND they apply to areas outside of the borders. The "Greater Los Angeles" name change and the icon change mean that the portal clearly represents the surrounding communities as well as the city. That is the way American metropolitan areas are. just because a location is physically outside of San Diego city doesn't mean that it has no relevancy to the San Diego area; it has connections to the actual city itself and with the greater San Diego area.
Removing, without announcement, portals from an article after the community has decided that the portals are acceptable for the articles is very disruptive to the California project. It starves the portals and the Wikiprojects of the exposure that they need. It means that other users have to waste their time to go back and revert your removals.
Do not remove another portal again. I do have the right to tell you to not do that, because the community decided that the portals were acceptable.
WhisperToMe (talk) 00:13, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Now it seems that there are objections to rewritting. Why is that? Are there rules in place for writting portals? Or are these you personnal feelings? If so, thanks, I will keep that in mind, remembering that there aren't many in Orange County who would agree that they are just a satelite of LA. In fact, The OC is the 2nd largest county in California. If you don't like my rewrite, then perhaps you should beat me to it, and do a rewrite of your own, which should have done in the first place. Both portals stink and have little if anything to do with the articles that you insist are relevant to the portal.--Jojhutton (talk) 00:40, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
I objected to you removing the portals. I said that you could rewrite the portal, but I also said that it is understandable that a metro area portal has a large focus on a city.
Why not do a rewrite of the LA portal, or post a draft at User:Jojhutton/Portal:Greater Los Angeles?
WhisperToMe (talk) 00:46, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
I did not inappropriately canvass at all. Your accusations are inappropriate.
My notifications said "Jojhutton was engaging in disruptive inappropriate behavior and he needs to be stopped"
There was nothing to decide. My messages were not biased methods to try to manipulate Wikipedia discussions
Your behavior was inappropriate. I had every right to contact other California WikiProject members to tell them that you were engaging in inappropriate behavior.
Go get to work on your draft. There was no inappropriate canvassing, okay? When you sneakily remove portal links after the community decided that the portals were okay, I have the right to notify editors who are involved in the project of the behavior.
WhisperToMe (talk) 01:10, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Its at ANI now.--Jojhutton (talk) 01:12, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 3 May 2010

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : L (April 2010)

The April 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject 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.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:35, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 10 May 2010

The Wikipedia Signpost: 17 May 2010

Cerrie Burnell reversion

You seem to have reverted this edit to Cerrie Burnell. If you look a bit more carefully, you'll see the contributor refers to the source in the edit comment, which is far more than most newcomers do. I've restored it with the citation inline. --GRuban (talk) 13:27, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

File:Wolfpack 014.JPG listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Wolfpack 014.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.

Can you tell me what this is a picture of? Captain Whitehall (talk) 10:08, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 24 May 2010

Virginia lead

The first sentence on Virginia is a touchy one, and taking it out of the south tends to get editors riled up. If you have a good argument for changing it, we just ask that you go to the talk page with it first. Best-- Patrick {oѺ∞} 23:15, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Only changing it back from what an anon changed.
Right, that was my assumption, but it was another user who had changed it and the anon demonstrated how fast readers will change it back. So that was the confusion.-- Patrick {oѺ∞} 23:20, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

May 2010

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on San Diego Zoo's Wild Animal Park. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. If you continue to unilaterally revert and remove portals instead of seeking consensus, you will be reported to ANI. TorriTorri(talk/contribs) 06:11, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Considering that the author of this so called "warning" has made the same number of reversions and is in fact the perpetrator of the false and misleading information that has continued to be inserted into that article, I must say that its not good form to misuse warnings as a way to win an argument.--Jojhutton (talk) 15:44, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 31 May 2010

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LI (May 2010)

The May 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject 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.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:18, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 7 June 2010

So, um...

...this wouldn't happen to be you, would it? --TorriTorri(talk/contribs) 06:49, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

First I would like to remind you that you must be very careful when you go around accusing veteran editors of wrong doing, which you seem to be implying with your accusations.
Second. Is it that you really think that I did this, or is it that you can't possibly fathom the fact that there are others (quite a few by my count), who think that the portals are completly out of place?
Third. As far as your baseless accusations go, I would not stoop to trying to hide my identity to try and remove a portal that is obviously in no way related to the articles subject. I would just do it right out in the open. Its fairly clear that these portals are misplaced and it seems that others agree.
Fourth. How long do the two of you going to continue to hold this subject matter hostage? No one else seems to agree with any of this silliness, yet you still ignore the fact that Orange County is in no way related to the City of Los Angelas.--Jojhutton (talk) 23:57, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 14 June 2010

The Wikipedia Signpost: 21 June 2010

The Wikipedia Signpost: 28 June 2010

Augusta County

Stuarts Draft is not an incorporated town. Grottoes is. Thank you, and I edited the article because the article contained incorrect information. --67.221.115.30 (talk) 21:45, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 5 July 2010

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LII (June 2010)



The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue LII (June 2010) 		Front page
Project news
Articles
Members
Editorial
Project news

Catch up with our project's activities over the last month, including the new Recruitment working group and Strategy think tank

Articles

Milhist's newest featured and A-Class content

Members

June's contest results plus the latest awards to our members

Editorial

LeonidasSpartan shares his thoughts on how, as individual editors, we can deal with frustration and disappointment in our group endeavour

To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please list yourself in the appropriate section here.

This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:12, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 12 July 2010

The Wikipedia Signpost: 19 July 2010

San Diego

This edit was not okay

Jojhutton, we have consensus that these portals are for all municipalities in San Diego County.

I am going to ask you to revert your reversals yourself.

WhisperToMe (talk) 20:35, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Foreign policy of the George W. Bush administration

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits of my posts on Wikipedia. You seem to be stalking my contributions to Wikipedia. Such edits constitute vandalism Thank you.tuco_bad 12:25, 23 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cgersten (talk • contribs)

You seem to be stalking my contributions to Wikipedia. Please refrain from making unconstructive edits of my posts on Wikipedia.tuco_bad 14:26, 23 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cgersten (talk • contribs)

San Diego Portal

I invite you to discuss the placement of the San Diego portal at Portal talk:San Diego. If another talk page would be more appropriate, let me know. I'm open to suggestions to gain a consensus on these portals. Thanks, Alanraywiki (talk) 20:36, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

How is this? WhisperToMe (talk) 05:10, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for adjusting the portal :) WhisperToMe (talk) 01:54, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Cheers.--Jojhutton (talk) 01:57, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

thanks. (:

I made the comment about changing the title of the Philadelphia Convention. I didn't learn about the other conventions. I completely agree and hope to get support for your offering, but I don't know how it will turn out. Thanks. 8-)--DrStrangelove64 (talk) 16:08, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Honostly, there doesn't seem to ever have been a discussion about what to name the article. (At least not on the talk page). I'm thinking about just making the change, since Constitutional Convention (United States), already seems to redirect there anyway. I don't think that there will be musch fuss over a new name change. If there is, then at least a good discussion can begin on it.--Jojhutton (talk) 17:35, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
Thank You!!!--DrStrangelove64 (talk) 17:42, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Jojhutton, thank you for supporting my discussion. --DrStrangelove64 (talk) 20:03, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Greater Los Angeles

I am posting commons on the AFD page... WhisperToMe (talk) 02:34, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks.--Jojhutton (talk) 02:36, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank You Angel paez (talk) 21:22, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the Welcome. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarat Chandra M (talk • contribs) 02:34, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the Welcome

I appreciate your help. I just noticed some outdated information on the Pasadena Playhouse page, so I thought I'd go ahead and fix it. I've never edited anything before. Did I do it right? I'd like to help clarify and clean up the article in general but I'm a little overwhelmed...where should I start? thanks again for the cookies! JeffyCreel (talk) 03:43, 26 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by JeffyCreel (talk • contribs) 03:42, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 26 July 2010

Hello Jojhutton!

Hello my new friend! username: Biextremities here. Just wanted to say thank you for your welcoming note! I don't really know all these codes here, nor do I know if I'm replying back to you on the appropriate page. It is my first time at editing and stuff here.... I'm not quite finished with my very first contribution to the web here, but please take a peak and let know what you think, please. I'd so much appreciate it. User:biextremities Biextremities (talk) 13:24, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your message Jo. I have replied on my talkpage. --FormerIP (talk) 12:12, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Just in the spirit of being helpful, think the better way to have quoted me would have been something like
  • FormerIP has already commented on his talkpage here: [4]
If you think any part of what I said is important you can add something like:
  • where he says "the banner is against consensus and also, IMO, a BLP violation"
Then add your own timestamp. That way people know it is you quoting me rather than me speaking.
The link showing the text I added is normally called a "diff", and you can find it using the "compare selected revisions" button on the page history. Most users find this easier than just a link to the page, because then they might have to trawl through to find the relevant bit.
Cheers. --FormerIP (talk) 14:31, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
Ya, again sorry about that.--Jojhutton (talk) 14:33, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 2 August 2010

Prefix or No Prefix

There's a more structured and informed than usual discussion taking place regarding the The prefix being added to Ohio State University. As you've participated in the past, I thought I'd inform you in case you'd like to participate. OlYellerTalktome 15:19, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Talk:The Elimination Initiative of Mother-to-Child Transmission of HIV and of Congenital Syphilis in Latin America and the Caribbean‎

I have reversed your closure of the move discussion at the above page because I do not believe the discussion falls into the boundaries described at Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions#Non-admin closure. I would question whether a non-admin should ever close a move discussion as "no consensus," as the first listed criteria for a NAC is that the discussion was "unanimous or nearly unanimous." Propaniac (talk) 17:26, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Thats fair, but I didn't see anything that would give me an impression that anyone was in support of the requested move. WP:RM has a massive backlog going back for weeks. Hopefully some admins will use their tools to clear some of it up soon, so users like myself won't feel the need to pick up some of the slack. Thanks.--Jojhutton (talk) 17:35, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Fox News Channel

getting old, take it the talk page of the article, I'll have nothing more to do about it
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

"I am hard pressed to understand how this is WP:OR. the citation was included and the information accurate"

Accurate or not, it is a primary source not supported by third-party RS cites required by WP:V. The source itself lists numerous "cites" of the study. I assume several of those may suffice. JakeInJoisey (talk) 20:51, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Seems independent enough, and how is a journal a primary source?--Jojhutton (talk) 20:57, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
They are the ones who did the "study", no? JakeInJoisey (talk) 21:11, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
Please stop retooling your comments, this is the second time I have replied to a comment and had an edit conflict with you because you are fixing spelling or reformatting. Its annoying. At this point I have nothing else to say, I did, but not anymore. Do what ever you want.--Jojhutton (talk) 21:21, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
My apologies for the EC trouble but I would appreciate your undoing your revert. Thanks. JakeInJoisey (talk) 22:03, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
As there appears to be a discussion already going on at the talk page, keep it as is, for now, until it is decided to remove. I only put it back in on the basis of your removal, and I am in no way endorsing the information one way or another.--Jojhutton (talk) 22:10, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
I only put it back in on the basis of your removal,...
Wonderful. Is that your normal editing practice? Don't you think it might be better to actually READ the friggin' source? Sheesh.. JakeInJoisey (talk) 22:14, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

San Diego Wild Animal Park

Thanks for your comments about the so-called elephant abuse at the Wild Animal Park. The user Molotov Kitten, who earlier added this same information to the San Diego Zoo article, accepted my edits there, so hopefully they will also accept them here. Good catch on your part, that those stories were not actually about the San Diego Zoo.

I have often seen you editing San Diego articles; I'm guessing that we probably have a lot of the same articles on our Watchlists. I notice that you and I are on opposite sides of the discussion about when to change the name of the Wild Animal Park to the San Diego Zoo Safari Park. If you saw the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Article titles#Organizations_that_have_decided_to_change_their_name, it seems to be approaching consensus we should hold off on the name change until the Park itself begins to use the new name; at this point the signage and even the website still say Wild Animal Park. However, I'd like to get your concurrence before changing it back. Please comment at Talk:San Diego Zoo Safari Park. Thanks. --MelanieN (talk) 02:02, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, but I don't think that we are opponents, we just disagree on that issue, although it will most likely be changed back, even if briefly. I only moved the article name after searching through the citations while looking for a date for the name change. All of them said that the name change would happen gradually, so I infered that there would be no real date for the name change. The vote I assumed was all that was needed. Although I'm not really sure what exactly they are going to do, or how they will implement the name change.--Jojhutton (talk) 02:21, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
I don't know either. How about we agree that the day they change the name on their website, we will change the article? --MelanieN (talk) 03:10, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Since you are interested in the naming of articles...

I'd be interested in your opinion in the discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Naming conventions for United States federal buildings. Cheers! bd2412 T 02:34, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

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

Again. I guess a talkback in this situation would be irrelevant, but I've responded again. The Raptor You rang?/My mistakes; I mean, er, contributions 16:09, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Philadelphia v. Constitutional

Is the request denied? Nothing has been said since two days ago. Dr. Strangelove (talk) 15:52, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

No, its not, it was relisted so its just going through another 7 day period of wait. Next Tuesday will be the end of the seven days. No worries, unless we get another Admin who decides to rule against because he thinks he knows whats best for everyone else.--Jojhutton (talk) 15:55, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
OK, thanks. And ain't that the truth. Dr. Strangelove (talk) 20:37, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 9 August 2010

Philadelphia v Constitution discussion

Hey, I just wanted to thank you for remaining civil in that discussion. I haven't been on Wikipedia in a while, partly because I somehow became entangled in discussions that were not, and I appreciate your professionalism. Best, Corvus coronoides talk 00:43, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

No problem. In fact, your argument has been the most precise. I have never seen a text book use the phrase "Philadelphia Convention", so I can absolutly see where your are coming from if that is how you learned it. I was jazzed that you remembered what book it was. Sort of through me off because I wouldn't expect you to remember. Curious though, how did your teacher refer to the convention?--Jojhutton (talk) 00:49, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Heh, I spent a good many hours with that textbook trying to do well in that class, and I always thought the title was funny as a play off the the French national motto. To answer your question, my teacher was pretty big on the development of our government (also a government & politics teacher), and she definitely used the term "Philadelphia Convention" a lot. Not saying she never used "Constitutional Convention", just that I don't remember it much. I also just remember the Philadelphia Convention, Annapolis Convention, and First and Second Continental Congresses ingrained in my brain as a group, so that's just how I remembered the convention. Corvus coronoides talk 01:35, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Projects and Portals

I have heard about WikiProjects and Portals, what are they?--Birkenburg (talk) 21:42, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Help for a client

Hello! I have a client that is trying to modify and existing page for one of HER clients, and she keeps getting shut out, and now it is listed as semi protected and she cannot edit even when signed on.... Aside from too promotional, unreferenced, what would cause this? Thank you in advance for your sage advice! Kristirae (talk) 15:39, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

She is trying to do some edts for Bert M Peterson. However, each time she does, another user comes in and removes them. And is now accusing her of vandalism. Since the edits were comissioned by Dr. Peterson, we do not understand what the issue is... Please help! Thanks! Kristirae (talk) 13:21, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
After looking at the page and edits in question I saw several issues with the wording.
Short version: The edits were made in a deliberate attempt to make the article's subject look better. This is what we call POV. And all articles should be written from a neutral point of view.
Long Version: There are literally hundreds of policies and guidelines on wikipedia establishing how articles should bee written and how those editing articles should act. There are three Core content policies that are strictly enforced. The first is WP:NPOV, which means that all articles should be written from a Neutral point of view and not give undue weight to any one viewpoint over another. The second is WP:Verifiability. This simply states that information being added to any article should be attributed to a reliable source. Without this sourcing, it becomes impossible to determine whether something written on any page is true or not. The third is WP;No Original Research, which means that an editor cannot simply add something to a page, just because they witnessed it or know it to be true. The edits on that page seemed to violate all three of those core content policies, which is why they were reverted quickly.
Longer version: There are other minor issues as well.
1. The user name User:CommunicationsCoordinator would suggest a single purpose account. This means that the account seems to be only created with the express intent of doing one thing. In this case, to edit a single article in order to improve the POV.
2. Edit Warring is extremely wrong on wikipedia and it seems that there were several attempts to add information, even after being reverted. All disputes should be resolved on the talk page so that there can be a consensus.
3. There should be no page ownership. There are guidelines on how to edit pages about ourselves, or in this case about a client. Reading this should help in this case.
4. There was also some obvious sock puppetry going on as there appeared to be at least two accounts trying to add the information. The other being an ip. This is a problem on wikipedia and is usually taken very seriously.
I know that to someone not familiar with editing wikipedia, all of these rules may seem overwhelming. They were to me at first. I consider editing wikipedia to be a fun hobby (like talking on a Ham Radio), and I hope most others do as well, but alas, there are many out there who seems to take all of this way too seriously. Don't fret. Just take some time a click on some of the links that I provided and get youself accustomed to some of the guidelines. There's no way to memorize them all, but as long as you have a general idea of what they are, you may come to realize why those edits were reverted.
Thanks and good luck.--Jojhutton (talk) 14:22, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Thank you very much for all of your help! You are correct in that the rules and guidelines are a bit overwhelming, but with your help, I think we can do what we need to. Once again, thank you! And thanks for the welcome with cookies!!! Kristirae (talk) 15:57, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

better?

I have a question, how do you make an article "better"? What is wikifying and cleanup mean?--Birkenburg (talk) 18:57, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

For sure appreciate all your help and I'll try to remember to fill in the edit summary.ScottieAngelo (talk) 03:01, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Re: Welcome!

Hello, thank you for your welcome! --Mrseacow (talk) 03:16, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 August 2010

Apology

I apologize for what I've done, I didn't mean to cause so much trouble. I enjoy editing at Wikipedia and I have a lot to contribute. Please accept my apology and remove my block threat.

Sorry, but I never sent you a block notice. I only sent you a Welcome. As long as you cease vandalism now, you will be OK. You don't appear to be blocked.--Jojhutton (talk) 18:38, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Smile!

Hello Jojhutton, User:Birkenburg has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing! Birkenburg (talk) 18:56, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Hello Jojhutton, The Utahraptor has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Another from me. The Raptor You rang?/My mistakes; I mean, er, contributions 18:59, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LIII (July 2010)



The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue LIII (July 2010) 		Front page
Project news
Articles
Members
Editorial
Project news

New parameter for military conflict infobox introduced;
Preliminary information on the September coordinator elections

Articles

Milhist's newest featured and A-Class content

Members

July's contest results, the latest awards to our members, plus an interview with Parsecboy

Editorial

Opportunities for new military history articles

To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please list yourself in the appropriate section here.

This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:34, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to bother you, but

Can I relist the discussion on the Philadelphia Convention. If so, how, and if not, who should close it? Sorry for the bother. (By the way, my signature is a joke.) Rainbows and Unicorns! (Tons of Fun!) 20:32, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

No, don't relist. As of now it is still sitting in the WP:RM back log. WP:RM traditionally has a long backlog. It may take a while, but it will happen eventually. It would seem that the oldest RM in the back log is about 3 weeks old.--Jojhutton (talk) 20:39, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Sorry to but in, but are we allowed to just move it? I seem to remember something like uncontroversial moves can just be moved, and at this point consensus is pretty clear. But I ask because I haven't edited in a while and my knowledge of wikipolicy is rusty. Corvus coronoides talk 18:00, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Technically yes, we can move it, and I would have done it weeks ago, in not for the fact that this particular move requires admin tools, since the target page, Constitutional Convention (United States), has had too many edits on it. Its a bit technical, but there are options. We can WP:PROD the target page, and an admin will delete it so we can use it for a move. Otherwise, we just keep playing the waiting game.--Jojhutton (talk) 19:19, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, JoJ! You're awesome for helping me get this name changed! I appreciate it so much! The Doomsday Machine! (Blastoff!) 02:14, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, when you first brought it up, I began to think about it more and came to the conclusion that you had a good idea, so I went with it and it seems that many others agreed with you. So the thanks goes to you for seeing a way to improve the article.--Jojhutton (talk) 02:46, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Jeannette Rankin

Really? -- Y not? 21:23, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Not understanding what "Really" is suppose to mean, but I will link WP:Verifiability for you so you can brush up on some of wikipedia policies. Remember that WP:V is one of wikipedias 3 core content policies and should be strictly applied.--Jojhutton (talk) 21:28, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Good article assistance

I am currently improving LA Galaxy to good article status, if you could help that would be fine and if it reached featured article that would be excellent! Just go over it, do edits to improve it, and give me your comments. Regards,--Birkenburg (talk) 21:44, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Nominated it. :)--Birkenburg (talk) 19:48, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Good job, Ill go take a look.--Jojhutton (talk) 20:39, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks!--Birkenburg (talk) 12:56, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
I could really use some help on directing links from disambiguation pages, the list is at the article's talk page, appreciate it! Regards,--Birkenburg (talk) 19:50, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and the history sections a mess! I referenced all the things by the way. Regards,--Birkenburg (talk) 18:59, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Uknown American Presidents Task Force?

Hi Jojhutton! I am thinking about starting an "Unknown Presidents" task force and I noticed that you are an active contributor at WP:USPREZ articles. I was wondering if you would like to join me in starting this task force. The following Presidents would be included:

Our Mission: To expand the knowledge of the "Unknown Presidents." Specifically getting all these articles to GA class or higher. Let me know what you think. Thanks! --Schwindtd (talk) 01:17, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

AFD

Sorry -- it was either a technical glitch or an error on my part, due to posting my comment at the same time that you posted yours. I've restored your comment. Propaniac (talk) 19:56, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks.--Jojhutton (talk) 20:01, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 August 2010

Image tagging for File:Sharon Davis.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Sharon Davis.jpg. You don't seem to have said where the image came from or who created it. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 02:05, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Having Sex with 2,500 Women

Well maybe having sex with $2,500 women during your film career may not seem significant to you, but it seemed damn significant to me and a major accomplishment even for an adult film star, director, and producer (Tony Ribas)! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.240.191.88 (talk) 06:50, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 August 2010

Sudden closing of conversations on the 9/11 attacks Talk page

Following up on your invitation, I will address here the closing of two discussions on the 9/11 attacks talk page, the one dealing with Larry Silverstein and the one titled Use reported speech for official versions of widely questioned events. I have reason to believe that you were instrumental in performing that operation but I have no way to verify it since the history covering those events seems to have vanished when MONGO moved those two sections, along with a few others, to the Talk:September_11_attacks/Archive_53 page. In any event, can you please confirm or deny that you were the one who closed those discussions. If you are the one, can you please explain why you did so without first discussing it with other editors. Or is it common practice and permissible behaviour to terminate a discussion one does not agree with? Oclupak (talk) 16:56, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk pages are not forums of general discussion. When that begins to happen, it is generally wise to close such a discussion before the discussion can snowball into a larger debate that is off the topic of improving the article. The information on closing those two discussions is visable in the talk page history, and you shouldn't need me, or anyone else for that matter, to confrim or deny an edit. Also, any matters involving WP:BLP are strictly enforced and should and will be taken seriously. If I witness a discussion topic begining to broach WP:BLP, I will close it. You have come very close to that line on a few occasions, but not grossly. Any continued allegations that the official 9/11 report was a conspiracy, without providing reliable sources, is WP:BLP against those members of the 9/11 commission, those in the Administration of President George W. Bush, and against President George W. Bush himself. Any questions as to why, please read WP:BLP.--Jojhutton (talk) 17:43, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 6 September 2010

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LIV (August 2010)



The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue LIV (August 2010) 		Front page
Project news
Articles
Members
Editorial
Project news

The return of reviewer awards, task force discussions, and more information on the upcoming coordinator election

Articles

A recap of the month's new Featured and A-Class articles, including a new featured sound

Members

Our newest A-class medal recipients and this August's top contestants

Editorial

In the first of a two-part series, Moonriddengirl discusses the problems caused by copyright violations

To change your delivery options for this newsletter please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 23:24, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Rollback

I believed that the edit was vandalism until I looked at your talk page and realised that you were the person who doesn't care that he's been told time and time again that he's wrong. Kindly stop telling everyone else that they're wrong for not applying naming conventions to the texts of articles. Nyttend (talk) 02:10, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

As I said, I believed that your edit was vandalism: you cited a totally irrelevant guideline for removing a standard piece of text, and I didn't realise that you were the person who doesn't care that the guideline isn't applicable. I came to your userpage with the intention of leaving a vandalism warning template; the only reason I didn't is that I saw your FAQ links, realised why you'd done it, and decided not to bother with trying to make you understand when you'd ignored so many other people. Nyttend (talk) 00:46, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
Do you have a guidleine or policy or anything that backs up your position that it was vandalism. Obviously you don't like it, but why is it vandalism? You obviously still think that it is. But why? Policy please.--Jojhutton (talk) 00:51, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Request comment at Wikiproject Old West

As a listed member, your input would be valued at this discussion on the coverage of fiction for WikiProject_American_Old_West. Jason Quinn (talk) 09:38, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Help

I saw you are in WikiProject Calfornia. I hope to bring Chula Vista, California article to FA for October 17, 2011 the cities centennial. The article is a very long way for a FA but i think if more people help it can maybe make it. GA and DYK are backup plans. If your not intersted its ok. Spongie555 (talk) 03:29, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

GA update

Just wanted to let you know how the improvement of LA Galaxy to GA is going. I have expanded the 1996-2005 section, and was hoping you could summarize the recent section without removing any refs. Thanks in advance,--Birkenburg (talk) 18:56, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Ohio State Buckeyes

Closing harassing comment thread. Please do not come to my page again.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Ohio State Buckeyes. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If the edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. WP:AVOIDEDITWAR §hepTalk 23:33, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

The reverted edits are vandalism. And continue to be so by multiple sock puppets.--Jojhutton (talk) 23:46, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
They're not vandalism. There has never been any consensus on that talk page. It's a content dispute. If you truly believe you are dealing with sock puppets it's very easy to file a report at WP:SPI. §hepTalk 23:53, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
From WP:V. Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia.. This is not the article name argument, which is probably the non-consensus, that you are referring to. This is the lead sentence and the info box, which should have the Official Name of the school. This vandal is doing this to multiple articles in a blatant attempt to be pointy, and to disrupt the integrity of the articles in question. The same person has used at least two, and perhaps a third account to accomplish this. Obvious sock puppetry if anything. By the way, I consider you the possible third as you made the very same edit on the heels of the other two accounts.--Jojhutton (talk) 00:03, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
You are accusing me of sockpuppetry? That's delightful! I've never been on this side of the conversation before. I'll be very curious to see where that theory goes. §hepTalk 00:42, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
Only suspicious at this point, as the Duck Test could be applied, and as you had already been to the ip's page before the edits. I've seen the duck test applied to a lot less, as I am sure that you have as well.--Jojhutton (talk) 00:46, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
I don't have the time to be insulted by your comments. If I see further edit warring with the IP without you trying to have some sort of discussion with them (or vice versa) I'm sending you to AN3. §hepTalk 01:31, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
Since removing content from articles without explanation using multiple accounts is, how would you say it? Oh, Vandalism. And as reverting vandalism is exempt from 3RR, I don't see a problem. As far as being suspected of sock puppetry, it wasn't meant to be an insult, just an observation.--Jojhutton (talk) 01:43, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
That's not removing content. Removing "the" because the IP believes that to be correct is not vandalism, and it's bad faith to call it such. Continuous reverts to your POV is edit-warring. Removing content would be if someone deleted paragraphs. By your logic, if a sentence said "Jojhutton is a a a Wikipedia editor" and someone removed the extra a's, you'd be entitled to revert them without limit. That's wholly incorrect and flies in the face of Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Enigmamsg 18:37, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Your example is a false analogy, and I bet you know it. An extra "a" in a sentence is a simple typo. This sock puppet was attempting to remove a word from the official name of the school, on multiple articles. I doubt very seriously that the vandal would get any simpathy at any notice board.--Jojhutton (talk) 00:04, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
It's not vandalism, and you were edit-warring. I doubt very seriously that you'd get any sympathy for calling good faith edits "vandalism", and for edit-warring across multiple articles. The thing about the "the" is a content dispute, and trying to characterize people who disagree with you as "vandals" would not go over well anywhere. Enigmamsg 00:58, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 13 September 2010

One more warning

Please stop harassing me, take it to Talk:Ohio State University
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

It apparently didn't take the first time, so consider this your final warning for edit warring. I'll save the trouble of posting the template again. Enigmamsg 00:59, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I guess you didn't see the talk page. Please do not leave threatening posts. The lead should begin with the articles official name per every single article about a college and University in the United States.--Jojhutton (talk) 01:10, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

The Milhist election has started!

The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has started. You are cordially invited to help pick fourteen new coordinators from a pool of twenty candidates. This time round, the term has increased from six to twelve months so it is doubly important that you have your say! Please cast your vote here no later than 23:59 (UTC) on Tuesday, 28 September 2010.

With many thanks in advance for your participation from the coordinator team,  Roger Davies talk 19:13, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Courtesy note: John Moore (EITC)

Hi Jojhutton! An article you have created or edited is up for deletion debate. Please feel free to comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Moore (EITC). --Kudpung (talk) 00:37, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I didn't create it. I did add a PROD a few months ago, but it was removed. Thats all I know.--Jojhutton (talk) 02:09, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

JetBlue flight attendant incident

I have made this edit to clarify that the result of the page move request was move. If you disagree with my change, feel free to revert. Cunard (talk) 22:34, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

No Worries.--Jojhutton (talk) 23:15, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Welcome to you too!

JouieM (talk) 23:54, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 September 2010

Inmates

I noticed you changed that, saying no one inmate is more important than the next. There are TONS of other prison pages that have a "notable inmates" section. Should I just go delete those, too? It is a side fact that I know people find interesting.Just my two cents.

Examples include:

And the list goes on and on...

Also to note, towns have "notable residents" sections. Why should that be then? "No one resident is more important than the next."

LewisArmistead46 (talk) 04:32, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Smacks of WP:Recentism. This has been dealt with before on this page.--Jojhutton (talk) 12:19, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
What about John Allen Muhammad? It will have been a year this upcoming November. Also, that still doesn't explain why the other Wiki pages do have notable inmate sections and you revert the edit to this correctional facility. Your reasoning for reverting the edit is not the same as recentism. Also, in ten years, yes, this information would still be relevant. - LewisArmistead46 (talk) 08:05, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
It has been my experiance that sections that contain "notable persons" tend to get bloated with too many persons whose notability are usually in question. Just visit any high school article to see why. In my opinion, these sections should be very limited, as notability is in the eye of the beholder, and can, in many cases, contain persons of non-notability. Notability in these prison articles should be limited to persons who may be notable for something other than their crimes, as in the case of OJ Simpson, or if the crime is so heiness, that there has been overwellmimg media coverage as to make the crime almost second nature to the imdividual, as in Charles Manson.--Jojhutton (talk) 03:35, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

There's been a short related exchange on my talk page here. You might want to take a look at that. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 11:50, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 September 2010

Rollback abuse

Believe me when I say I don't say this lightly, but can you clarify why you used, and also abused, rollback here? That is against WP:ROLLBACK, and also WP:IAR for that matter as well, because it's just rude and not necessary for obvious good faith edits. Tommy! 17:23, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Here is the edit that I was viwing when I used the Rollback [5]. If it was a mistake, I apologize. Please restore the version if you wish.--Jojhutton (talk) 17:26, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
I understand, sorry for any misunderstanding. I usually catch that stuff, for future reference. cheers Tommy! 17:30, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
No worries. It also appears that you made an intermittent edit in between that of course was not vandalism, but I never saw, but was rolled back non the less. Seems to be a glitch in the matrix if you ask me. Oh well, so sorry for any complications in may have caused.--Jojhutton (talk) 17:38, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Tommy2010 has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can Spread the "WikiLove" by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

no problem. Tommy! 17:44, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Jojhutton. You have new messages at Bongomatic's talk page.
Message added 07:35, 2 October 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

The Signpost: 4 October 2010

The Signpost: 11 October 2010

The Signpost: 18 October 2010

Help

Since your from the San Diego area. I want to get the Chula Vista article to FA for its Centennial next year or atleast GA but it needs help. If you can help it would be appreciated. if your not intersted its ok Spongie555 (talk) 03:42, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Ill take a look.--Jojhutton (talk) 12:07, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LV (September 2010)



The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue LV (September 2010) 		Front page
Project news
Articles
Members
Editorial
Project news

The results of September's coordinator elections, plus ongoing project discussions and proposals

Articles

A recap of the month's new Featured and A-Class articles

Members

Our newest A-class medal recipients, this September's top contestants, plus the reviewers' Roll of Honour (Apr-Sep 2010)

Editorial

In the final part of our series on copyright, Moonriddengirl describes how to deal with copyright infringements on Wikipedia

To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 20:03, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

thanks. (:

Thanks for your contribution to the debate over the article about the Philadelphia Convention! DrStrangelove64 has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can Spread the "WikiLove" by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

Talkback

Hello, Jojhutton. You have new messages at Talk:2012 Mountain West Conference Men's Basketball Tournament.
Message added 16:50, 30 August 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jojhutton/Archive_3&oldid=1144714769"