User talk:JHunterJ/Archive 24

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.

IEC connector

IEC connector really shouldn't be a section redirect to the C13 connector. If you do a Google search for "IEC connector", the top results are not only IEC 60320 C13 connectors, but also the C14, C15, C19, and even the C5 (aka the "Mickey Mouse connector"). The C19 in particular is extremely common in IT and is commonly used for UPS and servers. --Tothwolf (talk) 16:49, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I will rectify. -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:50, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File permission problem with File:SomayaReece24.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:SomayaReece24.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-enwikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-enwikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 00:41, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for sorting out the permission evidence on the old image without a quibble, and getting your OTRS ticket - mainly due the image rules slowly tightening and it eventually got caught in the net. If only everyone could do the same. You have set a good example for others to follow - as of course all admins should do :-) Ronhjones ^(Talk) 18:55, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh sure, I went through the who "denial/rage/despair" thing for a second or two, then dug out the old email and forwarded it on. I suppose if I didn't have a decent email search I would have raged longer. :-) But it was my pleasure; thanks for sorting out the images! -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:09, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Corvette

Thanks for letting me waste ten minutes of my life. As I said on the talk page I was about to remove the condensed version - which I was busy doing (making sure not to miss any extra votes) when I got an edit conflict with you who had done it a minute before. As I said I'd do it I do wonder why you started to do it. Dpmuk (talk) 12:15, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry I mis-read that. I thought you were just adding support to the view that the condensed version was unhelpful. "I'm about to" doesn't have the same meaning as "I'm going to" -- it can also mean "I've almost reached the point where I'm going to". -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:18, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's OK. It was slightly irratiting but I accept these things happen (and sorry for the slightly snarky message above as a consequence). I hadn't realised anyone would interpret it the way you did - although looking at a dictionary it is ambigous. Dpmuk (talk) 12:22, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. If I had read it more slowly, I probably could've resolved your meaning correctly too. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:14, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

tag

The guideline you pointed to has nothing in it different than what is in the disambig page currently. (Btw the article LDS sects lists LDS movement denom, whereas the disambig page in question correctly disambiguates among various kinds of Latter Day Saints.)--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 21:36, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Short descriptions, listing articles that are actually ambiguous with the title instead of a list of related topics, yes, the guidelines does differ from the current version of Latter Day Saint (disambiguation). Please allow members of the project to check it out. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:52, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It appears you suggest a merger to the LDS sects list article rather than merely rewording of an intro to the current list on the disambig pg. IAC, I affixed what I believe to be the appropriate tag and have also started a discussion here on the disambig guideline's talkpage.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 18:16, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was trying to suggest that other members of the disambiguation page check out the page. -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:03, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ultra

Someone went ahead and made the Ultra move without entering the discussion. Think it will need an admin to recover. Care to do the honors? --John (User:Jwy/talk) 19:41, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done, but I think it did not require a janitor bit -- no other edits had been made to the base name after the move, so it should have allowed anyone to move it back. No worries either way. -- JHunterJ (talk) 22:19, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I assumed. . . Will confirm empirically next time. --John (User:Jwy/talk) 04:08, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SdF hatenote....again

Hey, keep an eye on Stade de France. The three-month protection was lifted yesterday and, amazingly, the next edit was from an IP who removed the hatnote. — JS^{Rant Away} 01:03, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dayton, Ohio article

JHunterJ, since you and I keep a close eye on the Dayton, Ohio article, I wanted you to be aware of a potentially bad/negative situation. Please see the Talk Page of the Dayton, Ohio article and look for the section titled: "Neutrality Issues." The way that this IP address is talking, it could be a bad situation for the article it's self once the editing starts. If you could help me by keeping an eye for vandalism, negative writing, etc. in the article by this IP, that would be greatly appreciated. Thank you! Texas141 (talk) 14:01, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deposit

I see you just totally trashed my edits. Evidently wiki has no intention of the word deposit being clear to ordinary human beings. Andrewedwardjudd (talk) 20:17, 22 June 2011 (UTC)andrewedwardjudd[reply]

Your edits made the disambiguation page hard to use. The article space is the place to deliver information; disambiguation pages are navigational tools to get readers to articles. -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:29, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As i already pointed out i was prevented by wiki from adding a page to disambiguate deposit so that the pages were not harder to use. A whole crowd of people arrived to say they did not like 'the movie' and found it unnecessary and did not add anything useful at all.

No help was offered. And now you have finally finished the total trashing of my edits to help people understand the confusing nature of the word deposit that is obscured because of conflicting meanings and definitions and legal changes in useage from the original useage of the word deposit. Andrewedwardjudd (talk) 03:57, 23 June 2011 (UTC)andrewedward[reply]

Expressway

Hello. Just wondering why you deleted Expressway, as it contained the edit history of content that was merged with Limited-access road that needs to be preserved for attribution purposes. Cheers - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 03:16, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Temp delete, as noted in the deletion. Expressway (limited-access road) now has that history, and the cut-and-paste move of the contents of the disambiguation page (which lost its edit history) has been fixed. -- JHunterJ (talk) 03:19, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your further cleanup of Loop

Thanks for [1]. Pulling out all the unnecessary links (Ah, almost just typed "loops") and cleaning up the entries was pretty tiring, so having another set of eyes go through to do a better sorting is awesome. -- Natalya 20:12, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Glad that approach works. I often just tag-for-cleanup and watch pages when I can't fix them right away, then forget about them until someone else makes the first pass at straightening them out. :-) -- JHunterJ (talk) 00:52, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I did wonder how you often managed to come around to do a second pass cleanup of pages shortlky after they'd been gone through a first time. That's a nice idea, especially knowing that it's often hard to get the motivation to cleanup a pretty messed up DAB page just coming across it randomly. -- Natalya 01:28, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

help

I would appreciate your clear voice on dab page policies at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#New Era Building. --do ncr am 23:16, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

astrology of Ophiuchus

I notice you removed the astrology section in Ophiuchus back in January, after frequent problems with that section.
Now the same problems have restarted with Ophiuchus, and a similar discussion happened on Algol a few weeks ago.
Is there any good reason to keep more than a very brief reference to astrology in an astronomy article , when there is already an astrology page for it? Is there any specific guideline about this question? (I think that would be useful)
Your comment would be appreciated. MakeSense64 (talk) 13:19, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I reduced the astrology section and moved the disambiguation from the hatnote to a disambiguation page. I don't know the astronomy/astronomy guidelines well enough, I'm afraid, to answer that question. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:37, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for trying, but the reduced section didn't last long. I altered the wording a bit to make it more neutral, but again the larger section was reverted back. Some editors just refuse to take it on board that since 2009 there is a spinout article about the astrology of Ophiuchus. MakeSense64 (talk) 07:17, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi JHunterJ, I've just placed a comment on the discussion page, querying why you changed the content which was put together collaboratively. In my opinion the edit didn't create an improvement and it's not clear what your reasons were. Would you mind returning to the discussion page to view my post? I can tell you that a policy question was recently raised about the matter of astrological content on fixed star and constellation pages and the suggestion that those pages should not allow for astrological content was not supported. But please read the previous discussion in the thread, which clarifies that this is an astronomical matter anyway, so there is no good reason why the page should not be present a clear differentiation between the standard view, and the controversial (fringe) view which is not reliably supported. Hope you can make time for this and thanks for your attention, Zac Δ talk 20:08, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why you separate my edit from the other edits. All the work on the article is being done collaboratively. Sometimes the collaboration results in fewer bytes instead of more. The shorter text still clearly conveyed the differentiation between the astronomical view and the controversial view. -- JHunterJ (talk) 21:12, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for responding and returning to the page to comment. I'll make a brief response there. Regards, Zac Δ talk 21:42, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi JHunterJ. I'm not going to stick around or try to make any points of anything as I do not know everything about the issues at hand herein, but it should be pointed out that I've been following MakeSense64 and the criticisms of him since it appeared at AN/I about a week ago. It has been deemed by numerous editors that MakeSense64 has a reverse COI due to his being banished from another Web site off of Wikipedia. There is currently a thread at the administrator's noticeboard about this and numerous editors in support of a topic ban for MakeSense64. I would not at this time take his opinion at face value in regards to any astrology articles and would encourage further reading of his history over the last month or two. Any other thoughts by me are in the AN/I thread and the AN thread (the former linked from the latter in the archived location). Cheers. CycloneGU (talk) 16:44, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free rationale for File:MusicOfHunterJohnson.png

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:MusicOfHunterJohnson.png. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:53, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Letter-NumberCombination

Template:Letter-NumberCombination has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 23:00, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Spirited move

Was there a Talk:Spirited (TV series) to be moved with the article? I had thought there was. Thanks. --Lexein (talk) 03:23, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, it didn't have a talk page. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:40, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Natalie Kills

Good work cleaning up that article - always a bit tricky when the subject decides that whatever they are calling themselves this week is what they have always killed themselves. --Cameron Scott (talk) 10:24, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:05, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Touré (disambiguation)

Could you take a look at Touré (disambiguation)? This is really a surname page, not a dab page, and should be moved to Touré (surname). But another editor once split off all the surname entries to that title, which was later redirected back to the dab, creating parallel edit histories. So I can't move the page, of course. Once the dab page is moved to the (surname) title, it looks like the (disambiguation) title should be deleted and a pointer to the surname page handled by a hatnote on Touré. Does that make sense?--ShelfSkewed Talk 04:23, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. Done. -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:59, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good. Thanks!--ShelfSkewed Talk 16:31, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A-team

Thanks for your work at The A-Team (disambiguation). I had thought about including the definite article, but thought that perhaps because the special teams unit lacked it, I should leave it off. But it truly looks better this way. HuskyHuskie (talk) 02:40, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:27, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Have you noticed this, a new useless template? On a lot of pages (presumably ultimately 26 x 26), it has been placed to replace the useless {{Letter-NumberCombination}}. See PD for an example. Depressing. But, as you have pointed out, against WP:MOSDAB so needs to be removed. PamD 14:55, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. I've begun working though Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:LetterCombination and cleaning them off. -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:35, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your dab page changes

Just so you don't get the wrong idea, I'll say up front I have no position one way or the other, and I'm not criticising. Just asking. OK?
1) I see you've removed the "LetterCombination" template from a number of dab pages.

Why?

2) Your edit comment has been: "remove non-dab template/category from disambiguation page using AWB"

I understand the "using AWB" bit. I don't understand the "remove non-dab template/category". Could I bother you to explain this please?

Thanks in advance. Pdfpdf (talk) 12:46, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And now I've noticed the ever-reliable PamD's interchange with you above.

However, I really don't understand why this is a problem.

Please. What am I missing?

Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 12:49, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Pdfpdf! The headline version would be "Disambiguation pages disambiguate ambiguous Wikipedia articles." Per Wikipedia:MOSDAB#Images and templates, we don't include templates on disambiguation pages unless they are helping to disambiguate the ambiguous title of that particular disambiguation page. The various "combination" templates do not. These pages also happen to be categorized as articles on initialisms. Since disambiguation pages aren't articles, they don't belong in that category either. (WP:MOSDAB#The disambig notice and categorization) Cheers! -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:04, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]