Misplaced Pages

User talk:Jojhutton: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 18:51, 21 December 2009 editBrownBot (talk | contribs)Bots76,066 edits The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XIV (November 2009); link only← Previous edit Revision as of 22:19, 21 December 2009 edit undoJojhutton (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers48,483 edits adding someone in supportNext edit →
Line 9: Line 9:
{{FAQ row {{FAQ row
|q=Q3<nowiki>:</nowiki> Are you the only one who feels this way? |q=Q3<nowiki>:</nowiki> Are you the only one who feels this way?
|a='''A3''': No, of course not. In various discussions, Other users have expressed support for this convention in the past, in one way or another. They are: ], ], ](except in the infobox), ], ], ], ], ],}} |a='''A3''': No, of course not. In various discussions, Other users have expressed support for this convention in the past, in one way or another. They are: ], ], ](except in the infobox), ], ], ], ], ], ]}}


{{FAQ group end}} {{FAQ group end}}

Revision as of 22:19, 21 December 2009

This is a Misplaced Pages user talk page.
This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Misplaced Pages, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user whom this page is about may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Misplaced Pages. The original talk page is located at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jojhutton.
My FAQ Q1: Why do you remove the "United States" from articles? Isn't it more thorough to mention the country? A1: It is common convention among English speaking scholars to write geological areas in the United States as (City, State), and leave out the country. Every English language manual of style agrees that this is the proper way to write it. WP:PLACE covers this very nicely on wikipedia and is meant, despite the title, to be applied to all articles. Some have disagreed, and thats okay, but there is no convention anywhere on wikipedia that says that (City, State, Country) is the best and proper way to present the information. Q2: Have there been previous discussions on this topic? A2: Yes there has. This archived discussion at Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style seems to agree that the convention is (City, State). Q3: Are you the only one who feels this way? A3: No, of course not. In various discussions, Other users have expressed support for this convention in the past, in one way or another. They are: User:Woogee, User:Wikidemon, User:ShadowRangerRIT(except in the infobox), User:Pmanderson, User:Tony1, User:Jimfbleak, User:Sambc, User:DGG, User:GRuban

If you leave me a message here, I will answer here

AFC West
W L T PCT DIV CONF PF PA STK
San Diego Chargers 13 3 0 .813 5–1 9–3 454 320 W11
Denver Broncos 8 8 0 .500 3–3 6–6 326 324 L4
Oakland Raiders 5 11 0 .313 2–4 4–8 197 379 L2
Kansas City Chiefs 4 12 0 .250 2–4 3–9 294 424 W1

|Misplaced Pages:Template messages



Archives

What has come before 1 2


This page has archives. Sections may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

The Misplaced Pages Signpost: 14 December 2009

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 15:57, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Redundant information?

Closing a thread added by a stalker whose only edits in the past week seem to be related to undoing my edits
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

You edited Speedway, Indiana and removed "United States" from the lead sentence, saying it was redundant. Infoboxes often present information that is also presented in the body of the article. By your logic, why did you not also remove the county and state from the lead sentence? These are also is specified in the infobox. However, for the lead sentence to be descriptive, the information needs to be there as well as in the infobox. The country is as relevant as the county and state.

In editing San Ysidro McDonald's massacre, you removed "United States" from both the infobox and the lead sentence, saying it was "unneeded info". This is patently absurd, as the discussion at WP:Village pump (policy)#Countries in infoboxes (biographies) shows -- everyone there disagreed with you. The country needs to be mentioned, as it is not reasonable in an international encyclopedia to assume "United States".

Please stop removing relevant information from articles. Editor after editor has said that you are wrong to do so, at the village pump and on your own talk page, as well as in edit summaries. You have yet to cite a single policy or guideline that actually supports your actions. You should really stop. Omnedon (talk) 04:44, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Have you actually read Misplaced Pages:STALK#Wikihounding? I am not in any way stalking you. I am, however, asking you to stop removing relevant content from articles in the face of clear disagreement from many other editors. It's inappropriate for you simply to dismiss questions from others, "close" discussions without response, baselessly accuse editors of stalking, wikilawyering, bad faith, et cetera, and continue with your actions. Perseverance can be an admirable trait, but here it has been taken it to an unreasonable extreme; so far, no one supports what you are doing, and many oppose it, yet you continue to make these edits even after it has been made clear that you stand alone on this. We don't need to have a conflict here, if you would just discuss this instead of digging in. Omnedon (talk) 12:47, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

U.S. yet again

Per this edit, to say that Marilyn Monroe was born and died in the U.S. is not WP:OR. You seem to be changing your edit summaries if not your edits. The birth and death place are also sourced in the article, so it's not necessary to add another source to the infobox. Please stop removing the U.S. from infoboxes. You've had more than an opportunity to have your say, and several editors, myself included have read what you have had to say, and have disagreed. You do not own this aspect of Misplaced Pages's style, the style in which "U.S" is used in the infobox is acceptable whether you like it or not, and you've yet to show anything to support the removal of this style other than your own opinion, and your questionable interpretation of a guideline that refers only to the naming of the article. You are flogging a dead horse, and your editing has passed the point of being tendentious. Placing an FAR at the top of your talk page, doesn't make you right or make you anything more than a single editor with an opinion (who seems to be mostly out of step with every other editor who has commented). And yes, I'm sure you'll "close" this within minutes and I really don't care. Rossrs (talk) 15:22, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Stalking?

In response to your posting on my talk page, I have to ask: why do you believe I'm a stalker? Of your many edits, I've undone a total of one, based on a public discussion at the Village Pump in which many editors are involved (and to which I've contributed only a single comment). Please try not to be accusatory toward other editors, and see WP:Stalking#Wikihounding for Misplaced Pages's definition.

Also, despite the section title, please note that the discussion at the Village Pump addresses the appropriateness of removing "United States" in geographic references in general (as evidently does your own FAQ). It's a relatively minor matter certainly, but given that it's also a contentious one that's drawn quite a few people's attention, and that it's currently under active debate, I'd recommend that you not try to force it over/against other editors' concerns, per the general policy of consensus. Thanks Huwmanbeing ☀★ 17:08, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I apologize if I came off a bit harsh. I have had too many of my edits reverted in mass lately, but I want to say for the record that it was probably not stalking. As to the content of the discussion at the village pump. I saw, and still do not see, a reference to a guideline that refutes my position. If someone wants to form a consensus or change the guideline as it reads now, then let them offer a suggestion at the appropriate talk page. The Village Pump talk page is designed to offer suggestions to change policy and guidelines not to create a forum for forming consensus on non-excistant guidelines. Yes the thread did turn toward the article as a whole, but what you may not be aware of is that in other discussions, some editors have supported the belief that the body should follow the (City, state) guidleine.--Jojhutton (talk) 22:03, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
I can understand being concerned about reverts. However: if various people are indeed reverting many of your edits, that should be a warning sign that what you're doing likely lacks consensus and should not be pursued unilaterally. I see that you are carrying on with this, altering a number of geographic articles today with reference to the Place policy for rationale. As already discussed, this policy doesn't explicitly support your action.
From an examination of recent discussions, edits, etc., it clear there's not agreement on this issue, so I again recommend refraining from continuing, at least while there's contention and debate. (Or if you do choose to continue, please don't be surprised if others continue to revert.) Huwmanbeing ☀★ 21:09, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Administrators' Notice Board

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

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

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XIV (November 2009)

The November 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 18:51, 21 December 2009 (UTC)