User talk:JHunterJ/Archive 34

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.

Happy New Year JHunterJ!

	Happy New Year!
	Hello JHunterJ: Thanks for all of your contributions to improve the encyclopedia for Wikipedia's readers, and have a happy and enjoyable New Year! Cheers, BusterD (talk) 06:33, 1 January 2014 (UTC) Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year 2014}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.

Thanks, BusterD! Happy and prosperous new year to you too! -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:18, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry to have to be the one to remind you...

...that being an admin doesn't give you any special privileges as an editor. It doesn't make you a "supereditor", nor does it relieve you of the responsibility of getting a consensus on the talk page for a controversial edit. Your continued re-insertion of a clean-up tag over the objections of another editor, and without getting a consensus for it is aggressively uncollegial (not to say unworthy of an admin), and beneath you. Please do something productive to improve the encyclopedia, and do not re-insert the tag until you have a consensus to so do. The opinions on one editor, not matter of what status, do not override the opinion of another's if there is no consensus behind it. Do the right thing, please, and don't continue to be a WP:DICK. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:03, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

No surprises here. I've already reminded you you don't WP:OWN the article. Yes, please stop being a WP:DICK about it. -- JHunterJ (talk) 03:31, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Gamers in politics

First of all, I wrote the Clark A. Peterson article before I ever realized he was a judge.

Then just today, I realized that Rob Bell (Virginia politician) was the same Rob Bell who worked for Iron Crown Enterprises.

John Nephew of Atlas Games was also a city councilman in Minnesota - turning the redirect into an article is on my to-do list. BOZ (talk) 03:49, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Oops and sorry

... for this. Thanks for this. Blame it on that little too much wine at dinner. Signing off for today... - DVdm (talk) 19:26, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

No worries at all. Thanks for helping keep them cleaned up! -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:32, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Red Line

I added the template for the NYCS Broadway-Seventh Avenue Line to the Red Line article since all other articles of various colored lines use them. Why should Red Line be the only exception? ANDROS¹³³⁷_TALK 15:45, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

If there's a template incorrectly added to multiple disambiguation pages (which aren't articles, BTW), the fix isn't to add it to the remaining disambiguation pages. Instead, it should be removed from the disambiguation pages where it has been incorrectly added. If you'll let me know which other disambiguation pages have the template, I'll be happy to clean those up too. -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:16, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

The other colored lines (Orange Line, Blue Line, Green Line, Purple Line, Yellow Line, Brown Line, and Gray Line) all make use of the NYCS related templates for the individual lines. Only Red Line does not. ANDROS¹³³⁷_TALK 19:47, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Nottingham

I need that article moved back pronto. doktorb _words^deeds 18:30, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Moving it back would be contrary to WP:PRECISION, Wikipedia:WikiProject UK Parliament constituencies/Style#Article name and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Parliament constituencies#Local consensus on naming conventions contradicts the broader consensus on article titles. I need you to work with the broader consensus pronto. -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:43, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Consensus is over 1,000 articles with the disamb title being accepted and not moved. Indeed they are created with that disamb title, it's not a problem. You are disrupting a Project on the back of one reply and a red-text link. Not good enough doktorb _words^deeds 19:30, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Nottingham South (UK Parliament constituency) is back where it belongs doktorb _words^deeds 23:05, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Your definition does not appear in WP:CONSENSUS, but is contradicted by WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. -- JHunterJ (talk) 02:20, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

So? Really, so what? We have a system which works. And one that doesn't need reference to four and twenty policies to be accepted for over nine years without any objections. If you're bored, go deal with a backlog, because we're fine as we are. doktorb _words^deeds 05:23, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Old First Reformed Church

Can you explain your thinking in moving this away from a disambiguator? Thanks. BMK (talk) 20:27, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

• WP:PRECISION. There's no WP amguity for Old First Reformed Church, so no qualifier is needed. -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:29, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Thanks. BMK (talk) 20:53, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Elle Evans edits

Hi, would it make more sense to make the interviews and other media a section that is titled, "Further reading,"? And if so can it be moved above references? I've never seen a page where there were anything underneath external links. I thought external links was always the final section? Also, I was unaware "see also" was for other pages, but that makes sense to me now :). thank you for pointing that out.

Artthings (talk) 23:42, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

The interviews are external links; it makes sense to include them in that section, but to maintain their grouping make it a subsection (three equals signs on each side of the heading, rather than two. Or they can be moved into the reference section, if the material in them is used to cite some of the article text. But I don't think they can go above the references. See WP:ORDER for the ordering of the appendixes (if it's made into "Further reading", it would go after the references and before the external links). -- JHunterJ (talk) 23:50, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I will look into all of that, but in the meantime leave it as is for now. Thank you so much!!! Artthings (talk) 00:03, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

February 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Taiping may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• *[[Tai Ping Shan (disambiguation)]

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 19:31, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

You claimed it

Keeping conversation intact at User talk:Carlossuarez46/Archive 10#Claims of claims

Regarding some recent activity on Talking bird - discussion on WP:ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding CYl7EPTEMA777's recent edits and block threats regarding "Talking bird"-named articles. The thread is User:CYl7EPTEMA777, blocking threats, and disruptive edits on Talking bird and related articles. Thank you. —Steel1943 (talk) 21:01, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Disruptive editor

Hello, could you help me with the IP 201.215.252.50? He/she keeps edit warring on dabs, e.g. Philip Spencer (disambiguation) and Alan Cox (disambiguation). He/she won't listen, swears at me etc. His/her edits on other articles look impolite at best, too. I don't want to get involved in edit warring on these articles. Thanks for any help you can offer, Boleyn (talk) 07:23, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

 Done. Primary topic intros restored and pages watchlisted. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:07, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

March 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to PI may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• * [[Polyimide]]), a polymer of imide monomers

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 11:08, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Disruptive move of article

Hi, would like to ask a temporal page protection for 1517 Hebron pogrom, where two users aggressively insist renaming it without vote to a new title (without proper sources for new title and in violation of WP:RM). There is a clear disagreement and no discussion has been made on the talk page over the past half a year. The current move is blatantly disruptive, unless proper rename procedure is made. Thanks.GreyShark (dibra) 11:56, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

I reverted the move and watched the page. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:12, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Ostention of Daedalian lexicon

You recently changed the description of Verny, Russia at Verny from "several rural localities in Russia" to "a set index of localities in Russia". The phrase "set index" is meaningful to (some) Wikipedia editors, but I very much doubt that it is meaningful to casual readers of Wikipedia – the sort of folks who disambiguation pages are there to help. Do you have some objection to the use of "several foo", which I believe is used on various DAB pages to describe set indices, surname pages, DAB pages, and the like? Cnilep (talk) 01:24, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Typically, disambiguation pages link readers to the topics covered on Wikipedia, so set indexes get placed in "See also" and any list entries in the set index that link to topics covered on Wikipedia get repeated (with dab formatting) in the main dab list. In this case, however, none of the rural localities have coverage yet on Wikipedia, so it's awkward to include at all, but the target topic is not "several localities" but "a set index of localities". I see your point, though; perhaps "a list of localities"? -- JHunterJ (talk) 10:42, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Luther

Hello JHunterJ, thanks for explaining your revert to my recent edit on Luther. As fas as I understand, there was a debate in 2011 about the existence of a primary topic, where some people argued that the recent Luther (TV series) should be easier to find. While a currently airing TV show might be popular as a search topic today, I fail to see how it should ever match Martin Luther in importance. I very much doubt that a fictional BBC detective will enjoy 500 years of popularity, relevance and impact on world history. Some people in the debate expressed the same astonishment but the conclusion was to keep Luther as a DAB page.

Perusing the house rules on WP:PRIMARYTOPIC I would argue that Martin Luther should be made the primary topic according to both criteria of usage and long-term significance. However I also understand the confusion when people searching for another meaning of Luther were redirected to Martin Luther and that page's hatnote only pointed to the DAB page for other people named Martin Luther. Hence my proposed solution that I boldly applied: keeping Luther as a DAB page but placing Martin Luther prominently at the top, a la Churchill, then listing all other uses. This way, everyone searching for some Luther could get there in two clicks (no bias toward any Luther), and those who never heard of Martin Luther would be educated (we're an encyclopedia after all). We could also add an extra DAB link for Luther in the Martin Luther hatnote, so people could easily find the numerous places and creative works named after the historical Luther (which are most of the things listed in the Luther DAB).

What do you think? Should we raise a debate again, or just do it? Kind regards, — JFG ^talk 09:03, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

No problems with raising an RM for this. We can't just do it, because it's not clearly uncontroversial, given the earlier RM discussion. -- JHunterJ (talk) 21:03, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Sexology warning for Kosh Vorlon

Hi JHunterJ. I just noticed this warning in my watchlist and wanted to let you know that Kosh Vorlon has previously been warned, blocked, and topic banned under the sexology case (cf ([1] - his topic ban expired 4 days ago). You're of course free to warn again if you feel that's the most appropriate action in this particular situation (I haven't looked deeply into what's going on today); I just wanted to make sure you were aware of the history. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 14:18, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I did see that previous history, but since the discussion ban had ended on Tuesday, and I am not familiar with the ARC sanction process, I opted (or erred) on the side of caution. Should I have gone straight to re-block? -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:26, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

It's totally up to your judgment - discretionary sanctions are intended to be at the, well, discretion of the administrator applying them! A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 14:32, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

I recieved the warning but that page doesn't fall under sexology, so, you're warning is misplaced (There actually IS a discretionary sanction on that page, but it's not sexology.

Secondly, although consensus exists for that paragraph, it fails WP:V and WP:BLP, since no consensus can override policy, that consensus is invalid. (Very much like if consensus was used to attempt WP:NFC, such consensus would be over-ruled ). Since BLP violations can be removed on-sight and are exempted from WP:3RR, the portion of your message stating that I had violated my voluntary 0RR is also invalid.

As such, I will give you 1 week to self-revert. After that, though I would be entitled to revert you again, I would , instead start a dispute resolution process against you, which, in light of the black-and-white nature of this issue, would likely lead to you , at the very least, loosing your sysop bit. It's in your court. You have 1 week to self-revert  KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh   18:26, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

I will not be self-reverting. You are not entitled to any such revert. You may begin any dispute resolution process you see fit; you need not wait the week. -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:35, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

So, then, may I assume you're not overly familiar with BLP because it really does allow for reverts of any material that violate BLP, and it's exempted from 3rr. In that case, you have a week to self-revert and familiarize yourself with that policy.  KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh   18:44, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

You may not assume anything except that I will not be self-reverting. I look forward to your opening of the dispute resolution, and please do not wait the week. -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:53, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Kosh, even if he were to self-revert his warning, it would mean nothing. You're already extremely aware of the Sexology case discretionary sanctions, having been sanctioned under them once already. That's logged on the case page and has been for six months, and unless we're able to wipe the memories in your head somehow, even blanking everything onwiki would not mean that you weren't aware of the discretionary sanctions. As I just asked on my talk page, please consider whether the misunderstanding here is yours. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 19:24, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree that I was warned under discretionary sanctions under the sexology section. I'm not asking that that be forgotten, y ou're right, that's impossible. What I'm pointing out is that he's used this sanction for an area that it doesn't cover. WP:MOS is under a discretionary sanction, but not sexology, if he wants to remove the sexology sanction and warn me under the correct sanction, I would have no problem with that.  KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh   19:56, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Just for the record, while I think it's clear that Kosh Vorlon's being disruptive in sexology and gender-issues material, I think it's a very bad idea to use WP:ARBATC against anyone for discussing their style and titles matters in a civil fashion, even it is raises tiresome debates. Most MOS and AT debates are tiresome, at least to some of us, but they're a necessary part of process. I would like to see discretionary sanctions under ARBATC come to an end, as an inappropriate misapplication of content-dispute remedies to an internal self-governance area. If KV isn't being grossly incivil/attacking, fomenting some kind of canvassed anti-MOS or anti-AT "policy can go to hell" rebellion, or otherwise being truly disruptive, I wouldn't go the AE route. Don't give extra precedential weight to something that should never have been applied to MOS & AT in the first place. MOS raises tempers, but those tempers cool. If I were to run to AE every time someone "personalized a style or titles debate" or otherwise transgressed ARBATC, at least 8 people, including 3 admins, in the last week would have been sanctioned for CIVIL, NPA and AGF problems just in the verdammt bird-caps debate alone.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  21:17, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Headlines in articles - POV ?

Hello Sir ! Just some background - I'm currently working with the history of my local Soccer-football club, Landskrona BoIS. This may, perhaps, "cloud my glasses" and thereby cause some POV. However in my own humble opinion I think my contributions are well referenced. Amd my intentions have been to tell the history of the club (that is well-known whithin Sweden, but lackes real great victories) by the use of available sources. I have divided the club history in sections, as one should. I cannot take responsibility for other editors though, but most of recent changes are done by me, and the article has expanded since I began this work. (Swedish language as source seems to be accepted from webb-sources since the webb-translators today are good enough in order to be able to check if the source actually supports the statements. This has been used by many Scandinavian editors for rather a long time now, especially in Swdish or Scandinavian related articles) A very strange problem has now occured from another Scandinavian editor. User Reckless123 thinks that the article Landskrona BoIS must not use headlines that describes the following text part, even though the sources are OK. He means that using headlines like "1994 - 1996 Financial disorder caused dual relegation" is POV, dispite the fact that this is the essence of the following (sourcered) text. After having a look at Helsingborg IF (a neighbouring club), I find that the headlines under its history section, in that case are more POV. But user Reckless123 has so far not given any satisfying answer to this. So I think here is an editorial problem that calls for guidance. Can a headline be regarded as POV even if it tells the essence of a (well referenced) text ? As I see it, this may apply to other headline matters aswell. I don't think knowledge of soccer/football is necessary to give us guidelines. If You possible could help us, it would be very appriciated. Kind Regards Boeing720 (talk) 21:26, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

My user name is Reckless182 by the way. User Reckless123 thinks that the article Landskrona BoIS must not use headlines that describes the following text part, even though the sources are OK is a false statement. I do believe that headlines should describe the text, however Boeing has described the text with headlines that have been awfully biased, examples include: 1980's and early 1990's Mostly a dull period and The third millenium - a good start. I have suggested alternative versions that are more neutral but Boeing would rather have it his own way it seems. --Reckless182 (talk) 08:52, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

I am not able to jump into this discussion at present. -- JHunterJ (talk) 10:47, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Formatting

Not sure what happened here but all the line breaks got removed. Not a problem as I was able to put them back. Only thing was in doing so I forgot what it was I wanted to add. Cheers. CBWeather, Talk, Seal meat for supper? 13:03, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

I removed them because they weren't separate comments. Didn't want editors attempting to respond in the middle of your comment just because there was a blank line there. Are the line breaks needed for something? -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:38, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

They were to make for easier reading. Some editors complain about long "walls of text" and TLDR. I'll try this. CBWeather, Talk, Seal meat for supper? 20:26, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Possible protection required

Hello JhunterJ, I've just witnessed edit-warring at Occupied Enemy Territory Administration article, which in my opinion is a very important article regarding formation of modern Middle East; possible protection is required. Moreover, apparently some user completely changed the topic a few months ago, without any discussion at talk page. Due to importance of this article, i reverted him back until he discusses it through.GreyShark (dibra) 14:11, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Please use the dispute resolution channels. -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:38, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Ok, you asked

Per your request, your attendance is requested at this dispute resolution.  KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh   19:36, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

DRN about Wikipedia:MOS

Hi there, I am an un-involved editor on Wikipedia DRN. I would like to welcome you to the discussion. I can make out by reading your comments that you don't want to discuss the issue, but I would need your help in answering some questions. While I can't guarantee that there will be no incivility, but I will try my best to keep the discussion free from any.--Wikishagnik (talk) 21:24, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Please don't misunderstand my notes above. My declining to satisfy KoshVorlon's ultimatums here on my Talk page does not mean that I don't want to discuss the issue in the appropriate venues. I'll be happy to participate in the DRN discussion. -- JHunterJ (talk) 21:29, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Sorting out the (Al)(l)an Shermans

Really need to dab that Alan Sherman article; it's a common name and when I did a search in Google for "Alan Sherman" it immediately sent me to Allan Sherman, the comedy writer. (Furthermore, I think either Al or Allan Sherman was born "Alan" and had a name change as a professional...). I don't want to get into a big WP:PRIMARY fight about it, but IMHO all three spellings should go to a single dab and then to the article on each man. JMO. I have no real stake in this, just noticed a bluelink appeared when I thought I was going to have a red link on a different Alan Sherman (who may or may not be viewed as notable enough for an article at this point). Anyway, per BRD, looks like you are the lead editor on the Sherman article, so discussing. Montanabw^(talk) 20:05, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

If the only Alan Sherman topic on Wikipedia isn't the primary topic for the title "Alan Sherman" on Wikipedia, then there needs to be an W:RM to move the topic to a qualified name and the dab to the base name. (It's this latter step that put the page on the list at WP:MALPLACED, where I found it.) But minor differences are acceptable for different titles, with navigation for the others through hatnotes and/or disambiguation pages; see WP:DIFFCAPS. Alan Sherman, Al Sherman, and Allan Sherman is a viable solution, as long as readers on the wrong article can reach the one they seek through hatnotes like {{distinguish}} or {{other people}}. -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:10, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

I want to be sure I'm clear on this; the basic idea is to just to a RM? Would you be OK if I did this if I'm willing to tweak the hatnotes too? (i.e. I make the request, I do the work ;-) ? ) I think it wise, in the long run, at least. Montanabw^(talk) 02:12, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

An RM is always fine by me. I may oppose it based on WP:DIFFCAPS, but the consensus may be against me. If the RM closer doesn't leave the hatnotes in a useful arrangement, I'll help with the work. :-) -- JHunterJ (talk) 10:26, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Not on my A-list of things, I'll get around to it one of these days, I guess. Montanabw^(talk) 03:44, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

People's Park

You commented in the discussion just above Talk:People's_Park_(disambiguation)#Primary_topic.3F on the talk page, so might be interested to revisit the topic. PamD 08:03, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Sean K. Reynolds

Hey JHunterJ,

I have added Sean K. Reynolds to User:JHunterJ/RPG BLPs in case you are able to do anything to help out with the notability issue. Thanks! BOZ (talk) 17:00, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Talk indentation format etiquette or implied meaning

Hi JHunterJ. I'm looking at your talk indentation format edit "No bullet needed on my response to Snowmanradio's bullet. Each response should use the colon-and-star pattern its replying too, plus whichever colon-or-star it needs"

Why no bullet for your response? Is there an etiquette or implied meaning to a bulletted reply versus a non-bulletted reply? I had got to liking to reply in threads by indenting with a bullet on the first paragraph of my reply, and without bullet on any following paragraphs on the same reply. Someone barked at me for messing up indentation (I see no effect on indentation, ::* vs *** vs :::, in any skin) and for doing it wrong. I was just confused. Is there a simple explanation somewhere, or can you tell me? I see how you fixed the indentation on the post of 08:44, but I see no significance to the other changes --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:35, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

I didn't mean to imply an etiquette around the presence or absence of a bullet in a response. The note is around what precedes the final character in the bullet-or-indent markup. Numbering is where it is most critical:

1. Point 1

   Response

   • Bulleted response

2. Point 2

vs

1. Point 1

Response

• Bulleted response

1. Point 2

But sometimes with bullets too:

• This

Response to This

Response back

• • Other response to This

vs.

• This

  Response to This

  • Response back

  • Other response to This

Inserting newlines (empty paragraphs) or not preserving the preceding markup (while still appending whichever of star, colon, or hash, depending on whether you want a bullet, unardorned indent, or numbered response) can cause some oddities or unwanted artifacts in the rendering. Always preserving the preceding markup can't cause any oddities. -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:00, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

(American) two cent coint

I see you've moved it to a more a title that no longer identifies it as an American coin. I appreciate that you were sincere and acting in good faith in trying to get the simplest title, however, as per the comments I left in the article talk page there are Australian and NZ 2c coins (well there were until the 1990s) and therefore it probably makes it inappropriate (and looks a little American-centric) to remove the American qualifier in the title. Tigerman2005 (talk) 03:23, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate that. Until there is Wikipedia coverage on the other two-cent coins, however, it is appropriate (and not American-centric) to title the article with the base name. The qualifier still exists as a redirect, which can be linked from other articles as needed. It is inappropriate for a base name to redirect to the base name + qualifier, per WP:PRECISION, as I noted on the talk page. -- JHunterJ (talk) 10:43, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

May 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Teddy may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• * Teddy], a [[Imagin#Teddy|character in ''Saraba Kamen Rider Den-O: Final Countdown'']]

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 16:35, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Bird names

Thanks for moving some bird articles. Could you move some more. The following articles are the remaining Ardeidae bird family with the lower case version already exist as a redirect.

• Intermediate Egret
• Squacco Heron
• Little Egret
• Tricolored Heron
• Western Reef Heron
• White-faced Heron
• Stripe-backed Bittern

Regards, Sun Creator^(talk) 19:54, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

 Done -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:57, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Legends Football League

I'm responding to you and your cohorts actions on the LFL page. If they do not wish to have certain content regarding there past put up and cause issue and destruction to there organization, then they should be allowed to eliminate it. Its not your area to undo what they did. Unless you have concensus to do so, which it appears you have not. Please do not interfere with an issue that does not concern you. And please pass word to your partner who has been doing the same thing.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.156.40.9 (talk • contribs) 22:48, 5 May 2014‎ (UTC)

See WP:OWN and WP:COI. And I have no partner here, despite the coincidental similarity in user names. All of Wikipedia is the area of every editor. Please use Talk:Legends Football League to discuss the bold removal (and restoration) of properly cited material; undiscussed removal of cited encyclopedia information is vandalism. -- JHunterJ (talk) 22:52, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the edits help and proper grammar check. Still getting used to editing a wiki page, haven't even fully gotten my account successfully set-up. BTW, the ip address on the previous comment under this topic is mine from another machine, my apologies for the rude behavior. Don't mean any harm at all. Name is Nate, just a huge fan of LFL, that's all. - unsigned— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.22.166.254 (talk • contribs) 23:09, 30 May 2014‎ (UTC)

My pleasure. And there's no problem with making additions that need to be re-edited by other editors -- that's part of the Wiki process. Bold edits are welcome (and desired), and all edits are "out there" for everyone else to re-edit. Cheers! -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:40, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Removing the redirect of "unknown" to equation

You have moved unknown (disambiguation) to unknown. Before this move unknown was a redirect to equation. This meaning of "unknown" is clearly the primary topic for the noun unknown. Your move has the consequence that one has to edit all the article linked to the mathematical meaning of "unknown". Some editor has began to do that, but providing wrong links. IMO, the best is to revert your move. Have you serious reasons against this revert? D.Lazard (talk) 22:58, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, before this move, unknown was a redirect to equation, but that's because of your earlier move of the disambiguation page from the base name to unknown (disambiguation). My "serious reason" was that, once another editor objected to your move and redirect change, the resulting situation included a WP:MALPLACED disambiguation page. Please use WP:RM to see if there's consensus for the move of the dab page from the base name, since it turned out not to be uncontroversial. -- JHunterJ (talk) 10:37, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Request intervention

Hello JHunterJ, i would like your intervention in a case of an editor, who is insisting not to follow community consensus on page Human rights in Iran. Recently there has been a rename proposal of Human rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran -> Human rights in Iran. However the WP:RM proposal failed to get consensus. Despite the failure, user Red Slash said "If the move fails, I'm just gonna write up an article that puts both of these in one single article, with links to the articles on the specific time periods using ,{{main}}, unless y'all think that's a bad idea", and created a WP:FORK article at Human rights in Iran, dublicating article Human rights in Islamic Republic of Iran. My attempts to enforce community consensus failed, as the editor is aggressively insisting on the forked article's existence. I'm not intending to edit-war, so i request to protect Human rights in Iran in order to force Red Slash for a standard rename procedure, rather than attempting to game the system. Thanks.GreyShark (dibra) 07:58, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Please use the normal dispute resolution, including WP:AN/I, channels. -- JHunterJ (talk) 10:39, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Template:Ds/sanction move request

I have initiated a move request to move Template:Ds/sanction to Template:Ds/community sanction. The template has been deprecated with use for Arbitration Committee sanctions, and turned into a redirect to Template:Ds/alert, however the template is still being used for Community Sanctions, with modification, since there is no documented sanctioning template for Community Sanctions. The move request is at Template talk:Ds.

JHunterJ, I have posted this at WP:AN, WP:General Sanctions, and the ArbCom noticeboard, and thought you might be interested as well, because of your work with disambiguation pages. Cheers, —Neotarf (talk) 13:02, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

About LVG (disambiguation)

I'm looking through the edit history, and it looks as though the only {{Db-disambig}} tag that was placed ... was placed by me, and the person who removed the tag ... was me. Then, the person who undid my removal of the tag ... was me. Either way, it looks as though some IP-based editor out the tag back on the page. I guess we may want to leave it, unless someone actually truly opposes the speedy ... since, right now, per the edit history, no one has yet to do so. Steel1943 (talk) 22:55, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

This -- JHunterJ (talk) 23:11, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough. I probably didn't see that since the tag was mixed in with other text. Steel1943 (talk) 23:44, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Stand and Deliver

Hi JHunterJ I guess we disagree with what the primary article is I've opened a requested move debate at Talk:Stand_and_Deliver#Requested_move_14_May_2014.--KTo288 (talk) 08:54, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't disagree with you. Ceyockey did in 2007. I agree with WP:MALPLACED, though. -- JHunterJ (talk) 10:17, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Of course you did

Apparently I forgot that you seem to make all the decisions. How about giving the rest of us a chance to make a few edits. JOJ ^Hutton 22:35, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Not my decision, but not yours either. See the consensus at WP:MALPLACED against your edit, and use WP:RM to see if there's a new consensus for changing the primary topic. -- JHunterJ (talk) 22:37, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

What consensus? Was there a discussion? It just looks like what you want and only what you want. JOJ ^Hutton 22:43, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

The consensus that we don't malplace disambiguation pages. The implicit consensus of the stable arrangement. -- JHunterJ (talk) 10:29, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

And (still) not only what I want.[2] -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:11, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Lowercase query

Why orinoco goose? Surely rivers should be capped, as in Amazon kingfisher Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:49, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

 Fixed. Thanks. -- JHunterJ (talk) 10:29, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Just for info, I capitalised Maccoa duck, it's an alternative sp of Macau (ref available if needed) Jimfbleak - talk to me? 18:35, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I did a search on Maccoa, but didn't turn that up. -- JHunterJ (talk) 10:49, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

I know, but I couldn't think what it was if it wasn't a place name, and I had the advantage of the Helm Dictionary of Scientific Bird Names, which says under "maccoa" Maccoa, an alternative spelling of Macao, China (Portuguese Macáu). An erroneous toponym; despite its substantive and scientific names the Maccoa Duck is found only in tropical Africa. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 19:15, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Request for comment

Hello there, a proposal regarding pre-adminship review has been raised at Village pump by Anna Frodesiak. Your comments here is very much appreciated. Many thanks. Jim Carter through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:47, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

"In the USA"

Re: your edit summary. If you're going to follow my edits and fiddle about with them for your own agenda, please at least have the courtesy to use accurate edit summaries. DuncanHill (talk) 12:38, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

There's nothing inaccurate in the edit summary. And I'm not following your edits; it's clear that I'm watching the Raleigh (disambiguation) page in order to continue to participate in the current RM. Please at least have the courtesy to assume good faith. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:41, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

In fact, your edit summary is the inaccurate one, since it claims only the township addition. I mentioned both of my changes. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:46, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Oh seriously, I thought there was a possibility that readers might not know where somewhere was, and it would be helpful for them to have it explained. Given the obtuseness of some of your responses at the talk page I will have to assume a simple lack of competence if I am to continue assuming good faith. Oh, by the way, thanks for the sterling job you are doing finding incorrect incoming links to Raleigh, Perth, and all the rest. DuncanHill (talk) 12:51, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Please do take your invalid assumptions, incorrect accusations, and passive-aggressiveness elsewhere. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:53, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Can you delete this file?

You renamed a sample template that I wrote and called it Template:Partial title match table dispersion

I was just trying to show a sample of this kind of table to the disambiguation project. It was not intended for general wikipedia use yet. I am still experimenting.

Could you delete that Template:Partial title match table dispersion? Or tell me how?

I went back and cleaned up my suggestion to the disambiguation group.

Index	Group	Page Titles containing "dispers", and page titles in dispersion
1	dispersion	Acoustic dispersion
2	dispersion	Atmospheric dispersion modeling
3	dispersal	Biological dispersal
4	dispersal	Dielectric dispersion
5	dispersion	Dispersion (chemistry)
6	dispersion	Dispersion (finance)
7	dispersion	Dispersion (geology)
8	dispersion	Dispersion (materials science)
9	dispersion	Dispersion (optics)
10	dispersion	Dispersion (water waves)
11	dispersion	Dispersion relation
12	dispersive	Dispersive mass transfer
13	dispersion	Index of dispersion
14	dispersion	London dispersion force
15	dispersion	Modal dispersion
16	dispersion	Polarization mode dispersion
17	dispersion	Price dispersion
18	dispersion	Statistical dispersion
19	dispersion	Velocity dispersion
20	dispersion	Wage dispersion
21	dispersion	wiktionary:dispersion
22	dispersal	1950 AAFC dispersal draft
23	dispersal	1976 ABA Dispersal Draft
24	dispersal	1978 NHL Dispersal Draft
25	dispersal	1991 NHL Dispersal and Expansion Drafts
26	dispersal	2002 MLS Dispersal Draft
27	dispersal	2010 WPS Dispersal Draft
28	dispersal	Biological dispersal
29	dispersal	CFL Dispersal Draft
30	dispersal	Dispersal
31	dispersal	Dispersal draft
32	dispersal	Dispersal of ownership
33	dispersal	Dispersal vector
34	dispersal	Entropy (energy dispersal)
35	dispersal	Fog Investigation and Dispersal Operation
36	dispersal	Force dispersal
37	dispersal	Johor Bahru Eastern Dispersal Link Expressway
38	dispersal	Kajang Dispersal Link Expressway
39	dispersal	List of V Bomber dispersal bases
40	dispersal	National Lacrosse League dispersal draft
41	dispersal	Oceanic dispersal
42	dispersal	Seed dispersal
43	dispersal	Seed dispersal syndrome
44	dispersed	Dispersed knowledge
45	dispersed	Dispersed media
46	dispersed	Dispersed settlement
47	dispersed	NATO Dispersed Operating Bases
48	dispersing	Pigment dispersing factor
49	dispersion	Acoustic dispersion
50	dispersion	Air pollution dispersion terminology
51	dispersion	Atmospheric dispersion modeling
52	dispersion	Beta dispersion
53	dispersion	Chromo-modal dispersion
54	dispersion	Dispersion
55	dispersion	Dispersion (album)
56	dispersion	Dispersion (chemistry)
57	dispersion	Dispersion (finance)
58	dispersion	Dispersion (geology)
59	dispersion	Dispersion (materials science)
60	dispersion	Dispersion (optics)
61	dispersion	Dispersion (water waves)
62	dispersion	Dispersion of the Apostles
63	dispersion	Dispersion point
64	dispersion	Dispersion relation
65	dispersion	Dispersion relation
66	dispersion	Dispersion stability
67	dispersion	Dispersion staining
68	dispersion	Dispersion Technology
69	dispersion	Dispersion-limited operation
70	dispersion	Dispersion-shifted fiber
71	dispersion	Emulsion dispersion
72	dispersion	Exponential dispersion model
73	dispersion	Fundamentals of Stack Gas Dispersion
74	dispersion	Granule cell dispersion
75	dispersion	Group delay dispersion
76	dispersion	Index of dispersion
77	dispersion	Intramodal dispersion
78	dispersion	List of atmospheric dispersion models
79	dispersion	London dispersion force
80	dispersion	Low dispersion glass
81	dispersion	Material dispersion coefficient
82	dispersion	Modal dispersion
83	dispersion	Multiple-prism dispersion theory
84	dispersion	Multi-wavelength anomalous dispersion
85	dispersion	NAME (dispersion model)
86	dispersion	Non-zero dispersion-shifted fiber
87	dispersion	Optical rotatory dispersion
88	dispersion	Oxide dispersion-strengthened alloy
89	dispersion	Phase dispersion minimization
90	dispersion	Pigment dispersion syndrome
91	dispersion	Polarization mode dispersion
92	dispersion	Price dispersion
93	dispersion	Quartile coefficient of dispersion
94	dispersion	Roadway air dispersion modeling
95	dispersion	Single wavelength anomalous dispersion
96	dispersion	Standard linear solid Q model for attenuation and dispersion
97	dispersion	Statistical dispersion
98	dispersion	Taylor dispersion
99	dispersion	The Kolsky basic model and modified model for attenuation and dispersion
100	dispersion	UK Atmospheric Dispersion Modelling Liaison Committee
101	dispersion	UK Dispersion Modelling Bureau
102	dispersion	Useful conversions and formulas for air dispersion modeling
103	dispersion	Velocity dispersion
104	dispersion	Wage dispersion
105	dispersion	Zero-dispersion wavelength
106	dispersive	Dispersive
107	dispersive	Dispersive mass transfer
108	dispersive	Dispersive prism
109	dispersive	Energy-dispersive X-ray spectroscopy
110	dispersive	Dispersive partial differential equation
111	dispersive	Dispersive adhesion
112	dispersive	Wavelength-dispersive X-ray spectroscopy
113	dispersive	Time stretch dispersive Fourier transform
114	dispersive	Dispersive body waves
115	dispersive	Energy-dispersive x-ray diffraction
116	dispersive	Acousto-optic programmable dispersive filter
117	dispersive	Monochromatic wavelength dispersive x-ray fluorescence

RC711 (talk) 23:14, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

I will delete it. -- JHunterJ (talk) 23:16, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Edward Ferrers

Could you please explain why you have restored an article on Edward Ferrers that is cited to utterly archaic sources and is based on nothing more than a speculation that Puttenham's Ferrers is the same person as the obscure M.P. You have reinstated assertions that Ferrers "is described by Wood as a distinguished dramatist during the reign of King Edward VI of England." Who the hell is "Wood"? The article never says. The only footnote is to "Dugdale, Warwickshire, 1730". An edition of William Dugdale's book from the early 18th century! This article is absurd. No modern scholar believes that Edward Ferrers is anyone other than George Ferrers. The utterly obsolete speculation of a Victorian writer is not justification for an article that does not even make readable sense. The article even ends up asserting that there is no such person!!!! Paul B (talk) 18:49, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Because it set up a WP:MALPLACED disambiguation page, and had no discussion of the removal of material, the merging of the material, or anything else on the talk page. -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:50, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

So basically you are saying that on the basis of complete ignorance of the topic, you are restoring nonsense because an article no one ever edits not have discussion on the talk page? And in doing so you provide no discussion? As for the disambiguation page, I essentially had to choose between using the existing disambiguation page or turning the current page into a disambiguation. I've no idea what the "proper" policy on that is, but if you are such an expert may I suggest that you would have been better placed to follow whatever bureaucratic policy is appropriate rather than make the Wipipedia worse be restoring misleading nonsense. Paul B (talk) 18:57, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

So basically you are saying your ignorance of WP:MALPLACED and the article deletion process is OK? What you should do, instead of venting your spleen here, is request deletion or merger of the article (speedy deletion, prod, AfD, or merge) and move of the disambiguation page to the base name. As you noted, I have complete ignorance of the topic, so I cannot determine which path you should have chosen, only that option you did choose was incorrect. -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:59, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I do feel angry when I have actually taken the trouble to research the topic and someone who clearly hasn't even bothered to read the article comes along reinstates nonsense by essentially unthinkingly following a mechanistic model of "policy" on a technicality without any discussion or comment. It's the worst kind of bureaucratic approach to Wikipedia, one that does nothing to improve the encyclopedia. And it is not my ignorance that matters here fundamentally. It is yours, because content is the heart of all encyclopedias. Any approach that destroys good content or restores bad content in the name of technicalities is fundamentally destructive. Paul B (talk) 19:08, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately, you didn't make any note (discussion or comment) of the trouble you took to research the topic prior to setting up the WP:MALPLACED disambiguation page, so all I had to go on was the mis-arrangement. -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:15, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 3

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited White eared pheasant, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ptarmigan (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:53, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

User:JHunterJ/RPG BLPs

Hey JHunterJ! Hope all is well with you, and you are enjoying your wikibreak. You started User:JHunterJ/RPG BLPs a couple of years ago to keep track of and help get at-risk RPG-related bios better sourced. On that page I added a pretty good number of tagged articles last year, and have since removed several which were subsequently resolved. Last year you indicated here that you were having trouble with your access. I don't know if that has been ongoing, or if it was resolved but you have been busy, but I'm not going to add any more articles to that page for the meantime. I do see you helping out where you can, so I want you to know that is appreciated. Happy editing! :) BOZ (talk) 03:31, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Columbia Theatre

I would appreciate your explaining to me the right way to go about suggesting that the redirect on this page should be to Columbia Theatre (disambiguation). I'm afraid I'm quite confused about it. Thank you very much. Vzeebjtf (talk) 07:06, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Columbia Theatre should not be a redirect to Columbia Theatre (disambiguation). The base name should not redirect to a disambiguation page at "base name (disambiguation)" (that's the WP:MALPLACED part of the note). If there is no primary topic for the title, the disambiguation page should be moved to the base name. Since there is page history there, one of the WP:RM processes would need to be used. Cheers! -- JHunterJ (talk) 10:43, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. I started a WP:RM process erroneously at Talk:Columbia Theatre, then started the same discussion correctly at Talk:Columbia Theatre (disambiguation). Could you check out both please, to see if something more needs to be done? Thanks a lot! Vzeebjtf (talk) 02:40, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

That looks sufficient. Thanks! -- JHunterJ (talk) 10:29, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Fred Williams

Dear JHunterJ, I am not convinced that the Australian artist qualifies as primary topic. Even though he seems to be well known in Australia, people in other parts of the world might be looking for a different Fred Willams. Could you give some more background on your motives for the move.Inwind (talk) 13:10, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I am no advocating for his primary topicness. Redirecting Fred Williams to Fred Williams (disambiguation) is WP:MALPLACED, however, and one of the WP:RM techniques (technical request or full discussion) should be used to move the artist article to the new title and the disambiguation page to the base name. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:15, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

June 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Yellowish imperial pigeon may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• It is often considered a [[subspecies]] of the [[Torresian imperial [pigeon]] (which in turn sometimes is considered a subspecies of the [[pied

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 16:52, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Gareth Davies

Hi - why did you revert my changes ? there is clearly no primary topic so Gareth Davies should be the disambiguation page.Pwimageglow (talk) 13:02, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Because redirecting the base name to the dab page at "Gareth Davies (disambiguation)" is malplaced. Use WP:RM to move the dab to the base name. If there is clearly no primary topic, you can list it as a technical request pair. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:09, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

I've no idea what that jargon means - like most wiki users I just wanted to improve the content and don't have the time to become a master of technicalities. You clearly have that time so you would be doing something useful if you resolved the problem instead of just reverting a logical and non-contentious change that would improve wiki. I won't be fixing it - feel free to fix itPwimageglow (talk) 15:50, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, you've misunderstood how Wikipedia works. Your not having time to make the changes you want doesn't enable you to assign me tasks. The current arrangement does not hurt the content, so if you don't want to make the technical move request, the standing implicit consensus can continue. -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:04, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

WP:RM says to move the page if you are autoconfirmed and its non-contentious, as I did. You seem to think you know what needs to be done so it would have been more useful for you to fix it than demonstrate how clever you think you are by reverting sensible and useful changes. Well done. Pwimageglow (talk) 16:25, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

So move the dab to the base name. -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:10, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

You could have done it in half the time you wasted reverting my changes.Pwimageglow (talk) 15:00, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

And if there were evidence of a new consensus, I would have. You could have done the technical RM in half the time you wasted. -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:20, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

WP:RM says it doesn't need consensus or technical RM and any common sense shows the change I did was an improvement. However, if you had messaged me with a short understandable explanation of what needed to be done I would have (and been grateful for the help). Instead, I see from other posts that you've made WP:MALPLACED your personal crusade but reverting useful changes and spouting jargon doesn't help anyone (or wiki) - it merely discourages people from contributing.Pwimageglow (talk) 15:47, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Actually, you can see from WP:MALPLACED being in the Wikipedia namespace and not the user namespace that it's not a personal crusade. Sorry that the guidance to use WP:RM for the move wasn't clear. -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:50, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

I've no idea what you are talking about - life is too shortPwimageglow (talk) 16:57, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

M-185

Please move the article back. All Michigan state highways are titled with "(Michigan highway)" per WP:USSH, and that naming convention was the result of a mandate from ArbCom to resolve an arbitration case over WP:SRNC several years ago. To change the naming convention is extremely contentious, and essentially it is the third rail for the U.S. Roads WikiProject. Imzadi 1979 → 17:13, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Added a note to WP:PRECISION, so that editors can know when a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS is in conflict with it. -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:16, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

What is even more concerning is that you used your administrator permissions to make this controversial move, in violation of a consensus following an arb-related dispute. Please do not do this again. --Rschen7754 18:26, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

No admin powers were used in violation of anything. I checked the Talk:M-185 (Michigan highway), found nothing (no discussion nor link to the arb-related dispute), so applied WP:PRECISION. It is unfortunate that the WikiProject implemented a consensus different than the broader naming conventions without updating the broader convention, but I've fixed that for you. You're welcome. You might try assuming good faith, and do understand that admins are not expected to be omniscient. -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:23, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Where were your attempts to discuss before making this bold move to a Featured Article that will appear on the Main Page next week? Also, USSH has been around since 2006, which predates that list of exceptions, and perhaps the entire guideline of PRECISION itself. --Rschen7754 19:34, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Gosh, you're right. There was no discussion at all, by me or anyone else. It seems that it was simply a bold move, and the controversy was only apparent afterwards, and when the issue was raised, I contributed to the improvement of the encyclopedia by updating the relevant page. I'll make sure not to edit anything else until I've memorized everything that has been around since 2006.

Or you could assume good faith. -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:43, 27 June 2014 (UTC)