User talk:JHunterJ/Archive 11

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page .

Maybe it's just me but do you think it needs a good repair? I can't figure out what's wrong with it. Thoughts? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 19:13, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it could be improved. You could tag it for cleanup. -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:03, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This'll be quick, was there consensus on listing

]

Start with Talk:Freak (disambiguation). -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:34, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Thanks JHunterJ for the edit of Playboy Enterprises Page, but some of the new edit are red-link in Wiki. I have corrected them. Cheers Charleywin (talk) 14:21, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Changing red links to external links is not necessarily a correction. But I see that someone else has already re-fixed them to the more appropriate red links. -- JHunterJ (talk) 21:34, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks JHunterJ, I am quite new to WiKi.I am just a little bit confused at this stage. Is that allowed to change the red links to internal link? e.g. playboy gaming to a article page of Playboy Gaming on Wiki? Again, I checked some of the articles about Playmates, the most external pages are link to Playboy.com, so why is not allowed the external pages link to Playboy.co.uk (the playboy UK/EU domain)? Hope I could get your kindly advise. Best Regards Charley —Preceding unsigned comment added by Charleywin (talk • contribs) 08:13, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Advice already left on User talk:Charleywin, but in general: start your wiki career by adding content to articles instead of external links. Yes, it is "allowed" (that is, often preferred by consensus) to have internal red links to possible future articles rather than "link farm" links -- external links that are not used as reference or citations -- in the body text. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:17, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for the advice. I will start adding content to the articles rather than adding external links until i have more knowledge about the Wiki world! Really really thanks for the edits and advices during the last few days. As a new starter, i am so glad you helped me with these external links issue. Best regards! Playboy Fans (talk) 15:22, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. Looking forward to seeing your work! -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:07, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A Google hit shows that the Dragon Ball Z reference is a much more common search term.

]

Google search term frequency is only one aspect. Internal Wikipedia links did not show a preponderance for either entry, so a dab appeared the best solution. You should bring it up at Talk:DBZ if you believe there is a primary topic for "DBZ". -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:59, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not that I believe there is a primary meaning, I just don't see the need for a dab. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 23:50, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then how do you expect someone entering "DBZ" to choose between the non-primary-topic articles?

• If there's no primary topic, then a disambiguation page is needed.
• If there is a primary topic
  • and one other possible article, then a disambiguation page is not needed.
  • and two other possible articles, then a disambiguation page is optional.
  • and three or more other possible articles, then a disambiguation page is needed.

-- JHunterJ (talk) 11:21, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Understandable. "DBZ" is the primary topic for "Dragon Ball Z", so, there is no need for a disambiguation page. Shall I make the edit? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 19:20, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm gonna go ahead and do it. Thoughts before I proceed? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 21:57, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sames as before: "You should bring it up at Talk:DBZ if you believe there is a primary topic for "DBZ"." -- JHunterJ (talk) 02:01, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome! Too bad about the drama (it does seem abundant here, eh?), but I hope all is well. -- Natalya 10:49, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for correcting my malplaced disambiguation "Surxondaryo redirects to Surxondaryo (disambiguation)" (19 July 2008, 12:10). I am personally responsible for at least four more such bloopers: (1) Collectivization redirects to Collectivization (disambiguation); (2) Decollectivization redirects to Decollectivization (disambiguation); (3) Vahdat redirects to Vahdat (disambiguation); and (4) Zaamin redirects to Zaamin (disambiguation). If it is not too much trouble, please correct all four of them when you get a chance. Now that I am aware of the problem, I will do my best to avoid malplaced disambiguations in the future. --Zlerman (talk) 13:39, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. I moved on of them to the base name (

db-author}} and they'll be removed. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:01, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

JHunterJ, I'm trying to understand why you added a db template to this article. What's the problem with it? - Richard Cavell (talk) 03:29, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It a disambiguation with no articles to disambiguate: there are no articles that "collide" over the article title "Tiferes". There's

WP:D#Partial title matches). Nothing to dab, so no dab page needed. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:18, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Page names

Could you please remove any personal attacks, such as talking about my "history" that has nothing to do with the topic? It would greatly show that you are willing to actually participate in a discussion. I work with mediations and consensus problems all the time, and it is one thing to argue about a topic, it is another thing to embrace such tactics. Ottava Rima (talk)

No personal attacks were made by me, but I will remove the observation about your previous problems with working with consensus. -- JHunterJ (talk) 02:41, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, a "personal attack" is basically anything in which focuses on the individual as an individual instead of the words that were currently stated/of importance. Now, I have had two incidents that involved "consensus", and I can discuss the juicy details about the one over email if you would like. :) Now, for your information, I don't actually care what the disambig pages look like. However, they tend to result in edit/move wars, which can cause serious problems. Right now, I am most concerned about Samuel Johnson, which is being edited towards FA, and it would be bad if that suddenly got into a move war as it once had happen to it. (if its in a move war, or in one recently, it cannot be promoted, and any FA that is in edit wars can possibly be demoted, which would affect a lot of FAs that have disambiguation links). I hope you can understand the concern. I introduced the topic on village pump for a larger community input. If consensus is against me by this weekend, then I will withdraw any claims. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:56, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot - thank you for removing that line. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 02:58, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm at a loss to fathom how the proper (or improper) following of the guidelines for the layout of the dab page Samuel Johnson (disambiguation) can help (or hinder) a move war at Samuel Johnson, except for possibly hindering it by indicating that it is in agreement with what the primary topic / base name should be. So, no, I don't understand the concern, but you're welcome. -- JHunterJ (talk) 03:04, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See this for some further insight into the history of the move warring over the page. Thats not the only topic on it, but it is an easy to find link to it. Now, for FA, a page needs to have a sense of stability, meaning there isn't conflict over the nature of the page, which tends to fall apart as soon as people start warring over aspects. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:17, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, thanks; I understand move warring. However, as I said, the proper formatting of a dab page should only hinder move warring or have no impact on the primary topic article (if there is one). -- JHunterJ (talk) 03:20, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In a rational world, you'd be correct. :) However, there are people from various backgrounds who argue over if one person is more well known than another (priority), and if you look at the link, you will see that not only did people want to change the name (Samuel Johnson to Dr Samuel Johnson) to try and make it not have a move war, they also put multiple proposals for the disambiguation (writer as only one example). Someone like Johnson, an 18th century figure who was a poet, a writer, a biographer, and many other things, has a lot of problems with naming, especially if someone else named Samuel Johnson makes it big in another field. The easiest way to deal with it is to have the top line say "a name" to not show priority, then have as many people with as many name variations as possible (as long as they are legitimate) to try and keep off any disputes. The same thing is true of John Adams. The idea is to make everyone happy so that no one would start an edit war. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:27, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see. If move warring is the problem, and you would like to vary from the style guidelines because of it, that should have been the point and request made on

WP:IAR applies to dabs too; if there's a reason to ignore the guidelines (and consensus for it on the page's talk page), then we can bury the primary topic. Is there a move war problem with U2 as well? If the move warring problem is widespread and the guidelines should be changed, then that's the approach: requesting a change. -- JHunterJ (talk) 03:36, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Not really. Just from my experience, the primary topic, when it came to names, was to mean placing "name" at the top and just going from there. If that was being operated under IAR on all of those pages, then it was without notice. Perhaps this was just a patchwork job that was never brought over to the policy side of things, since it mostly found itself at AN and RM forums? The problem with U2 wasn't necessary move warring anymore, but prioritizing between the plane and the band - remember, there are a lot of WW2 scholars out there that support the plane being labeled as "U2" based on the common usage. People get sensitive when it comes to a topic they like, and most seem to dislike the disambiguation notes. We need a clear guideline set up for pages with multiple notable topics that fall under the disambiguation listing. Situations like U2 (for the plane) where the nickname (U2) is known more than the real name are also problematic. I think we need to wait and see what comments come up. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:02, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi JHunterJ, I don't think what you've done disambiguating Kol language quite works. There are four five languages at least sometimes known as 'Kol' (see my additions to Kol language (disambiguation)). Two of them are currently red links, but they won't remain so. I don't think it would look good to have three four 'hat notes' above each of these article. How about you move Kol language back to Kol language (Papua New Guinea), Kol language (disambiguation) back to Kol language, and I'll create a stub for Kol language (Cameroon). -- Ngio (talk) 12:18, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation pages do not disambiguate various meanings; they only disambiguate Wikipedia articles. The entries you've added with external links should be removed. See

otheruses}} can be used instead of four hatnotes. Or, if you feel that Kol language is not the primary topic, it can be moved back with consensus at Talk:Kol language -- I'm not an expert on the languages, just on dab pages. Cheers! -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:39, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

No worries. I've made a stub for Kol language (Cameroon). This should be at the same level of hierarchy as Kol language (Papua New Guinea). A Papuanist searching for 'Kol language' will expect to find the PNG language, but an Africanist will expect the Bantu one. So I think Kol language should definitely be a dab page. The other uses of 'Kol language' are name variants or dialects -- so a mention on the dab page seems like the best solution there too. I'll get rid of the external links. -- Ngio (talk) 18:39, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

... surely this is a revert? But please don't block him

]

Re: Partial revert request

See User talk:Sesshomaru/Archive 13#Partial revert request

I am writing about what I regard as confusion with the article on Central Asian dumplings

]

I would recommend that

WP:RM to propose a move. I'll clean up the dabs in the meantime. -- JHunterJ (talk) 00:46, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

New edit summary for disambiguation

Thanks for the edit summary—I was using the default AWB disambig message, which I have now replaced. --AnnaFrance (talk — blunders) 00:36, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Sesshomaru has referred me to you as an expert...apparently there was something wrong with the way I edited this disambig page (edit in question here)...I wanted to make it clear that the term was also Japanese for rabbit, and I'm not sure a link to Wictionary in Japanese does it. But it seems the MOS doesn't allow the page to say "This is Japanese for rabbit". I'd like to know if there's any "proper" way to work this up so it mentions the meaning of the as well as the fact it's a name. I'm stumped (a conversation with User:Sesshomaru about this is here for reference). --UsaSatsui (talk) 04:21, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I added a short description to the page. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:08, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Works. MOS is confusing. Thanks. --UsaSatsui (talk) 19:06, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What are your thoughts on this? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 14:57, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it differs from this in some ways that are helpful (italics on a title, pipelink fix) and some ways that are not (removing the surname category, moving the people who are not simply given-name holders or surname holders into the same anthroponymy list. Even if the name holders got split into their own article, Henry the Lion, Lion of Judah, and Willie "The Lion" Smith would remain on this dab, so shouldn't be moved together. -- JHunterJ (talk) 10:44, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What would you have done? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 03:38, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not "have done". What did I do? See the diff linked in my previous response? -- JHunterJ (talk) 10:08, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I saw it, but I don't understand what you're trying to say? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 15:52, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And I can't figure out what you're trying to ask. There's a version "I would have done" in the edit history. Feel free to revert to it and redo just the italics and pipelink fixes if you want to see what it looks like. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:46, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eh? I hope you do come back - in the meantime, your rational comments will be missed! -- Natalya 13:53, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here on Talk:BAT. It seems the edit was made for no reason. He once did the same thing to me on Talk:Android (Dragon Ball). Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 17:29, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention that he is still stalking me. See his edits to Dracula (disambiguation), Crash, James Cary‎, Lie (disambiguation), and BAT for instance. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 17:40, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yet again you leave me speechless.

Abtract (talk) 18:56, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Sesshomaru, you should not have replaced the disambig project tag with {{

prod}} instead. Abtract's edit of your edit there was not a revert. The allegations of stalking are a little hard to swallow; on James Cary, you requested cleaning; on several of the others, you both have edits back over several months. -- JHunterJ (talk) 22:35, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Was that not part of the contract? IIRC Abtract was not supposed to edit pages I touched. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 22:51, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is not. If that were the case, you would have both been (re)blocked for several different instances. No need to rely on your recollection, though; the agreement is still visible on Abtract's talk page. -- JHunterJ (talk) 01:23, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See this edit] and the associated talk page discussion for a debatable (I am being kind) application of the guidelines.

]

Spam defense

I am not spamming anything, The links that I added this morning (ESPECIALLY) the chambers of commerce links are the offical sites. If you had bothered going to those sites you would have realized this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Winterface (talk • contribs) 13:51, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then, as asked in the first message, please discuss the addition of the links on the talk pages of the articles first. If the article were about the chamber of commerce itself, then the addition of the official site would be useful; since the articles are not about the chambers of commerce, the links appear to be spam (in the Wikipedia sense of the word). -- JHunterJ (talk) 21:59, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Trying my best but seriously pissed off ... the latest is here.

]

Oh and welcome back.

Abtract (talk) 18:17, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

I have undone the edit because Abtract reverted me first (though not classified as a "full rv", he did break the contract by editing something he didn't agree with). Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 18:23, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually mate I did not disagree (too much) with your re-organisation of the page (not ideal imho but not to fight over), I simply recognised the primary meaning using your layout. If you had spent even one minute thinking about it instead of blindly reverting, you would have seen that.

Abtract (talk) 18:34, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Ok, now you're just spouting nonsense. First off, I'm not a pirate so the whole "matey" thing won't do. I don't know what "layout" you speak of, and I haven't a clue as to why you accuse me of a blind revert. If there's something you don't agree with, bring it up in discussion. Then again, no use in telling you that, since you rather "enjoy" sparking edit wars. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 18:44, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Abtract made an edit with no consensus to the MoS [1] in favour of his own intentions. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 22:34, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked both, for reverts in violation of the agreement. I believe the agreement could be made less problematic to each of you if we change "don't revert the other" to "Abtract/Sesshomaru will not edit any page for any reason if the most recent editor was Sesshomaru/Abtract, and also will not revert any page to a version previous to Sesshomaru's/Abtract's last edit". -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:26, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I need your opinion about this edit. Is Jerzy right about this? It seems very strange to just say "Hawaiian word" without explaining what the word refers to, such as "a Hawaiian priest". Can you help out here? Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 04:02, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:34, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I left a request for comments on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Disambiguation#Woodstock. Thanks in advance for any suggestions you can offer on this topic. Viriditas (talk) 04:08, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've made may comment just now on

requested move of "Woodstock" to "Woodstock (disambiguation)" so that the base name can become a redirect. That may also garner more attention. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:40, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks. I'll do that asap. Viriditas (talk) 21:55, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It would seem that when I refused to sign the "agreement" on Abtract's page, he decided to retaliate some by creating Oxford Scientific Films on July 29th, an article directly related to Meerkat Manor (a topic he had already been warned repeatedly to stay away from due to his use of it for the sole purposes of harassing me). This was also an article listed on my user page as one I planned to create[2]. It was immediately deleted, which he complained about and got it userfied before sticking it back in the main article space on the 30th. He has, of course, since stopped editing it. As you are well familiar with him, I'm sure you realize it is not a topic he normally edits at all, hence my suspicion he created it solely as another way to annoy me because I wouldn't sign the agreement. The article he created is rather poor, even misspelling the name of the company's biggest series. I wish to work on the article to bring it inline with a proper company article, including adding its infobox, putting it in the appropriate projects, fixing the references, fixing the bad spelling and prose, etc. However, I am concerned that if I do, it will only invite Abtract to begin harassing me again and reverting anything I do to fix the article up. Suggestions on how to deal with this (and I know Abtract reads your talk page and will probably respond before you do, but you are the admin keeping the closest eye on this situation right now). -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:01, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Outside of disambiguations, I do not know what type of pages Abtract normally edits. I would suggest you make edits to the page, and if he reverts, make your suggestions on the talk page for the article as normal; the usual

WP:BRD process. -- JHunterJ (talk) 23:04, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

While I didn't sign the agreement, Abtract did. He is apparently leaving Wikipedia, and guess he didn't care about breaking the agreement to leave one last jab at me on my talk page[3]. Not that there is anything to be done, but just in case he isn't really leaving, I wanted to make sure someone noted that he broke the agreement again. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:40, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The parties to the agreement agreed to end the agreement, so it was no longer there to break. -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:49, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, so he can just go back to harassing just because he's leaving and ended that agreement (he was under earlier restrictions, but guess they were negated by the agreement). Oh well, here's hoping he really has left for good. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 18:51, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No. But since you weren't a party to the agreement, I don't think there's much point going into the details. -- JHunterJ (talk) 23:47, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In which case, the earlier restrictions against him harassing people should still be in place, since I didn't agree to it (though Abtract himself did and it DID include not posting to my talk page). -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:17, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bidding you farewell is not harassment; that you treat his note as a jab does not mean it was one. Abtract himself did agree and then the agreement ended. You're beating a dead horse. -- JHunterJ (talk) 00:26, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it was, particularly when his message did contain final jabs along the same crap he's said before and was warned about. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:28, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you think so, you're welcome to pursue your accusations of harassment through the normal channels. This talk page isn't it. -- JHunterJ (talk) 00:29, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're the one who volunteered to ride heard on him. *shrug* Long as he stays gone, I won't bother. I suspect, though, its another temporary leave like he's done before, and he'll come back and start all over again. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:31, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I volunteered to enforce an agreement that happens to be in effect no longer, not to ride herd on anyone. -- JHunterJ (talk) 00:35, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Left me a similar message [4]. Don't know who he is to say that I'm "uptight". Such audacity. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 16:54, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this comment here? -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:49, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's right, I want out of that contract. Signing it was perhaps the most foolish thing I've ever done. If Abtract can get away with a partial rv, then might as well not adhere to it. What are the methods of getting out of it? Or is it permanent? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 16:30, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't a partial rv. I've asked on his talk page if he'd like to move over to the agreement I proposed. -- JHunterJ (talk) 23:05, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Enough of these "agreements". If I sign out, what happens? Will I receive another punitive block? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 23:18, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No. Unless you continue the disruptive edit patterns with Abtract. -- JHunterJ (talk) 23:24, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So can I get out of this or have I sold my soul to the devil? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 23:38, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can "get out of it", but you still need to edit civilly and build consensus, even if the other party is Abtract. -- JHunterJ (talk) 23:39, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Per your authorization, I took my name off [5]. May I go back to editing without having to worry about Abtract? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 23:45, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You may edit civilly and build consensus, yes. -- JHunterJ (talk) 23:46, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Be honest with me J: if I were to revert Abtract, will there be another block on my account? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 00:01, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If he makes a bold edit and you revert it? No. If you make a bold edit and he reverts it and you revert that rather than taking it to the talk page? Probably not. For going one more iteration? Maybe. One more after that? Yes. Edit civilly and build consensus. -- JHunterJ (talk) 00:04, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That seems unfair J. And if he modifies a page I've edited, what happens? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 00:09, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you make a bold edit and he revert it? Nothing. If he makes a bold edit and you revert it and he reverts that rather than taking it to the talk page? Probably not. For going one more iteration? Maybe. One more after that? Yes. Same thing. Perfectly fair. Edit civilly and build consensus. -- JHunterJ (talk) 00:12, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So then it's whoever breaks

WP:3RR? Please give a short answer. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 00:15, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Short answer: edit civilly and build consensus. -- JHunterJ (talk) 00:16, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

J, a "yes" or "no" is what I'm looking for. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 00:18, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And I'm sorry that you do not understand how to edit civilly and build consensus without it. Yes, if you break 3RR, you'll get blocked. If you read

WP:3RR, however, you'll find that it is not necessary to hit three reverts; you might violate 3RR on your second revert if you cannot edit civilly and build consensus. "The bottom line: use common sense, and do not participate in edit wars." -- JHunterJ (talk) 00:22, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Slammiversary

I saw your recent fixes to Slammiversary (2008). Just for you to know, I've been working on it in my sandbox so no further edits or clean up is really needed since I plan on trying to finish it by the end of the week, if I find time, and have it ready for GAN by the end of September.--WillC 00:36, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just to let you know I won't be around much for a while and to thank you for your perseverance over the last few months. You have exemplified what a good admin should be and it couldn't have been easy at times. I was going to thank you for enabling me to make my peace with Sess but, judging by his message to you above, that may have been a little premature. Perhaps you could convince him that my message to him was intended in the most friendly spirit which sadly he seems to have misconstrued. Thanks again.

]

While "my pleasure" may be a bit too rosy, certainly "you're welcome" is true. :-) Good luck with your studies! -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:51, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ha! A perfect response ... as expected.

Abtract (talk) 19:01, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Re: Bold, revert, discuss

See User talk:Sesshomaru/Archive 14#Bold, revert, discuss

Oh, wait: Warum mich?
P.K. Dick described that as the first words out of the psychiatrist's mouth when one of his characters was the patient.
It means "Why me?", and specifically, "Why is it me you came to?"
I came to you bcz i can't remember who (if anyone) i've asked to assist me in admin'ing before, and it's stupid to start at the top of the list, since if everyone did so ....
Being Jerzy, i make a point to eventually work on every Dab-CU that hangs out long enuf in the Js (or a handful of neighboring letters) and i'm working my way thru the Je stretch of the untagged Dabs. And your name was the first one i was sure was familiar, following my own. (Would i have tried Jimbo if you weren't there? [wink])
I find myself having noticed on the latest Edit Counter how often i have edited

. I wrote the other abused user saying basically that they haven't asked for my advice, but in any case i assure them that staying frosty won't make a fool of them. I mused for a while and put an un-ignorable box around the discussion, requesting a cooling-off period of several days in pursuit of civility and expecting compliance.
I think it may be important to bring a fresh admin in at this point: IMO it'd have been chickenshit to forgo a prompt response (such as the "suspension of discussion") to frank defiance of CIV, but especially since i'm at least another target (and i don't claim to be free of a tendency to overcorrect for my chickenshit instincts), would you be willing to step in, as someone with no axe to grind except upholding the admins' charter to wield "force" on behalf of policy when it comes to that?
Thanks for your attention in any case.
--Jerzy•t 09:46, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since the discussion is suspended, you are asking me to weigh in once the suspension is lifted? Or earlier (now)? And to weigh in on the (de)merits of the move, or on the civility? Cheers! -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:27, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I would prefer you make made your charter as broad as you see fit -- not to the exclusion of judging as well the merits of the suspension, and whether my neutrality or appearance of neutrality is sufficient re the move, the civility issue, and/or the suspension: don't fear offending me!
  My perception of crisis that brought me to you is focused on civility, and i am conflicted and don't trust my ability to properly balance the poles of the conflict:

1. Obviously bringing Gh around to wanting to become a good colleague is first choice (and i like to think i've done a decent job of pursuing that).
2. Gh can be seen as having precipitously backed themself into a corner that they can't leave without self-humiliation. In some of my most hawkish sets of goggles, i am concerned about a large proportion of the users who hypothetically become aware of what Gh has professed: i see them as being inhibited from challenging Gh's positions -- or simply subliminally off balance -- by a sense that any expressions of changed intent or apology are more plausible as cynical maneuvers to get their way on the short term than as sincere; i am tempted to say that we would owe it to the editors and the project to ban them as an incorrigible bully, even if we were optimistic that it is not the case.

As to timing:

I think it would be unfair to some to have made it shorter and still more so to shorten it now. (And in any case it did occur to me beforehand that someone might complain about my "machinations" away from the talk page (contacting you), as carving out an exemption for myself from the expansive scope i implied for the suspension! My defense is that my intention is to function neutrally, that to the extent i succeed such exemption is desirable, and that to the extent i am failing, our discussion ameliorates the problem rather than exacerbating it.)
I see no objection to your becoming active in this during the suspension. I was anal retentive enuf in defining the minimum that you and i probably should not edit the two sections during the suspension! But while i intended to foreclose others from reviving either the move discussion or the complaints in a new section, i think it may be valuable to start shaping post-suspension expectations in a new section, probably one where editing is restricted for now to you or to admins; it might make some sense for one or both to take questions or suggestions in our user-talk namespace(s), and act as moderator(s) in copying some of them, and responses, onto that new section.

Please see your charge as being as broad as you find comfortable; i hope your questions reflected caution and courtesy more than a belief that it would have been reasonable admin-ship for me to set limitations of the kind you seemed to check for. Ask more questions, of course, if my motivations or assessments or whatever seem worth weighing, but on questions of what i consent to, please assume the answer is "Yes". Thanks again, and please forgive my verbosity. (Apologizing for that was one of the things i stripped out of my first draft of my first msg. [sigh])
--Jerzy•t 21:43, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I used a pretty broad brush. I'll keep an eye on the next steps... -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:26, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I set Woodstock aside for a bit; I think I'll wait for more traffic. I'm curious, what's your approach to fixing something like Domino? The order is wrong. Viriditas (talk) 13:59, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I took a shot at it. The ordering might still need work, but there aren't very many other groupings I could think of. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:21, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nice. Is there any way to make {{

HotCat. Viriditas (talk) 23:55, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Ok, I see the problem. Wikipedia's suggesting search plugin only works for Firefox browsers. Still, I would love to see this in the dablink. Viriditas (talk) 00:02, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Last edit: Dab pages would be more useful as suggesting search widgets that you could use anywhere in the body of the article. Viriditas (talk) 00:16, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Big changes to the form and function of disambiguation pages are beyond both my skill and purview. meta:MediaWiki feature request and bug report discussion might be the place for that kind of change. -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:48, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for adding that citation to the

]

You're welcome -- I'm just glad I could find one that was pretty clear-cut. -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:42, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]