User talk:Jojhutton/Archive 4
 | This is an archive of past discussions with User:Jojhutton. 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. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | → | Archive 9 |
The Signpost: 25 October 2010
- News and notes: Mike Godwin leaves the Foundation, ArbCom election announced
- In the news: Good faith vs. bad faith, climate change, court citations, weirdest medieval fact, brief news
- WikiProject report: Nightmare on Wiki Street: WikiProject Horror
- Features and admins: The best of the week
- ArbCom interview: So what is being an arbitrator actually like?
- Arbitration report: Case closes within 1 month
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Signpost: 1 November 2010
- In the news: Airplane construction with Wikipedia, lessons from the strategy project, logic over rhetoric
- WikiProject report: Scoring with WikiProject Ice Hockey
- Features and admins: Good-lookin' slugs and snails
- Arbitration report: Arb resignation during plagiarism discussion; election RfC closing in 2 days
- Technology report: Foundation office switches to closed source, secure browsing, brief news
The Signpost: 8 November 2010
- News and notes: Second Wikipedian in Residence, {{citation needed}} for sanity
- WikiProject report: WikiProject California
- Features and admins: No, not science fiction—real science
- Election report: The countdown begins
- Arbitration report: No cases this week; Date delinking sanctions reduced for one party; History ban extended
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
San Diego Zoo
| Closing a stalker's comment. Thread should not be reopened |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Please do not remove the "United States" link from articles as you did with the San Diego Zoo article; I reverted that removal, since it is relevant to specify the nation, and you reverted again, even though your FAQ says, "If you revert, and place "United States" back into the article, don't worry, I won't edit war with you over this issue." You're edit-warring. Please stop. Omnedon (talk) 15:12, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
|
Edit warring
In your FAQ, you now state, essentially, that you will engage in edit warring if you find it necessary. This is absolutely against the way Wikipedia is supposed to work, as is another statement you make in your FAQ: "I'm not changing my mind, so any discussion is futile, and redundant." If you are going to participate in Wikipedia you must be willing to discuss. If you don't wish to discuss this here, it can be discussed elsewhere with or without you. Please participate; thanks. Omnedon (talk) 18:39, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
- Regarding this recent edit I would ask you one last time to discuss this issue, and to stop assuming bad faith by calling me a stalker and a wikihound. If you refuse to deal with this, I'll have little choice but to take this issue up elsewhere, and I would suggest that your behavior will not be viewed positively. Thanks. Omnedon (talk) 01:48, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
- You my friend are the one who is perusing my edit history looking for edits in which to revert simply because you don't like them. Although you lack any policy or consensus decision that supports you. Please stay away from pages that I am editing. You can't tell me you had this hole in the wall high school on your watch list too. I don't go around reverting your edits and I wish that you afford me the same courtesy. Your behavior is disrupting my enjoyment of editing wikipedia.--Jojhutton (talk) 12:32, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
- So you are saying you enjoy removing pertinent information from articles? You may feel that having the "United States" link is not necessary, and that's your opinion; but why do you insist on actually removing it and claiming that some policy supports you? Why is it so offensive to you to have that link in articles? Since Wikipedia is an international encyclopedia, it makes sense to mention the nation in an article about a place. Not everyone in the world is going to automatically know these things. Yes, the nation can be discovered by clicking on a city's link; but I still don't see why you feel it is actually wrong to include the link. In your eyes it is more than is necessary; but surely it hurts nothing to include it. Our goal here, surely, should be to improve the encyclopedia for the reader. How does your action do this? That's the real question. How does removing "United States" make an article better for the reader? Omnedon (talk) 13:11, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
- I will ignore the insult. BUT ONLY ONCE! As far as wikipedia being an international encyclopedia, articles are to be written in the common language of the country it is being written about. We don't use British English for every article nor are articles written in purely American English. The local spellings and idioms are respected.
- As I said before, unless you have some policy or linked consensus to say that every article should be written "your way" then stay off articles that I am editing and please leave me no more messages on my talk page. Any more deference from this request will only be interpreted as continued stalking. --Jojhutton (talk) 00:05, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
- "Local spellings and idioms" are irrelevant to what we are discussing. Specifying the nation in which a place exists has nothing to do with local spelling or with "idiom". If it did, then you would not expect to see the nation specified for places in, say, Zimbabwe or New Zealand or Iceland, and you expect an article about Austria on the English Wikipedia to be written in German because it is about a place where German is spoken; but that's not how it works, as you know. By your logic, you should also not specify the US state (or city) in which the San Diego Zoo exists, because you would assume that everyone will just know that it's in San Diego, California; yet you do not remove this information -- only the nation. You are purposely removing relevant information from articles, and you are the one that should find some way to support your action, or else cease. Thanks. Omnedon (talk) 04:38, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
- For the record, I have no problem with most of your edits, and I do believe that your intent is to improve the encyclopedia (just as mine is). I do not call you names, nor do I assume bad faith on your part. I simply disagree that removing "United States" from United States place-related articles improves them; and I would suggest to you that leaving the "United States" in place does no harm based on your position, and improves the article based on mine. Can we not find some common ground here? Omnedon (talk) 04:59, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
- So you are saying you enjoy removing pertinent information from articles? You may feel that having the "United States" link is not necessary, and that's your opinion; but why do you insist on actually removing it and claiming that some policy supports you? Why is it so offensive to you to have that link in articles? Since Wikipedia is an international encyclopedia, it makes sense to mention the nation in an article about a place. Not everyone in the world is going to automatically know these things. Yes, the nation can be discovered by clicking on a city's link; but I still don't see why you feel it is actually wrong to include the link. In your eyes it is more than is necessary; but surely it hurts nothing to include it. Our goal here, surely, should be to improve the encyclopedia for the reader. How does your action do this? That's the real question. How does removing "United States" make an article better for the reader? Omnedon (talk) 13:11, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
- You my friend are the one who is perusing my edit history looking for edits in which to revert simply because you don't like them. Although you lack any policy or consensus decision that supports you. Please stay away from pages that I am editing. You can't tell me you had this hole in the wall high school on your watch list too. I don't go around reverting your edits and I wish that you afford me the same courtesy. Your behavior is disrupting my enjoyment of editing wikipedia.--Jojhutton (talk) 12:32, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
The Signpost: 15 November 2010
- News and notes: Fundraisers start for Wikipedia and Citizendium; controversial content and leadership
- WikiProject report: Sizzling: WikiProject Bacon
- Features and admins: Of lakes and mountains
- Dispatches: A guide to the Good Article Review Process
- Arbitration report: No cases this week; Amendments filed on Climate Change and Date Delinking; Motion passed on EEML
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Bugle: Issue LVI, October 2010
|
To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 23:05, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
The Signpost: 22 November 2010
- News and notes: No further Bundesarchiv image donations; Dutch and German awards; anniversary preparations
- Book review: The Myth of the Britannica, by Harvey Einbinder
- WikiProject report: WikiProject College Football
- Features and admins: The best of the week
- Election report: Candidates still stepping forward
- Arbitration report: Brews ohare site-banned; climate change topic-ban broadened
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Signpost: 29 November 2010
- In the news: Fundraising banners continue to provoke; plagiarism charges against congressional climate change report
- WikiProject report: Celebrate WikiProject Holidays
- Features and admins: The best of the week
- Election report: Voting in full swing
- Arbitration report: New case: Longevity; Biophys topic ban likely to stay in place
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Signpost: 6 December 2010
- News and notes: ArbCom tally pending; Pediapress renderer; fundraiser update; unreferenced BLP drive
- WikiLeaks: Repercussions of the WikiLeaks cable leak
- WikiProject report: Talking copyright with WikiProject Copyright Cleanup
- Features and admins: Birds and insects
- Arbitration report: New case: World War II
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Bugle: Issue LVII, November 2010
|
To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 22:41, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
The Signpost: 13 December 2010
- Rencontres Wikimédia: Wikimedia and the cultural sector: two days of talks in Paris.
- WikiProject report: WikiProject Algae
- Features and admins: The best of the week
- Election report: The community has spoken
- Arbitration report: Requested amendment re Pseudoscience case
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Signpost: 20 December 2010
- News and notes: Article Alerts back from the dead, plus news in brief
- Image donation: Christmas gift to Commons from the State Library of Queensland
- Discussion report: Should leaked documents be cited on Wikipedia?
- WikiProject report: Majestic Titans
- Features and admins: The best of the week
- Arbitration report: Motion passed in R&I case; ban appeals, amendment requests, and more
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Signpost: 27 December 2010
- Ambassadors: Wikipedia Ambassador Program growing, adjusting
- WikiProject report: WikiProject National Basketball Association (NBA)
- Features and admins: The best of the week
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Signpost: 3 January 2011
- 2010 in review: Review of the year
- In the news: Fundraising success media coverage; brief news
- WikiProject report: Where are they now? Redux
- Features and admins: Featured sound choice of the year
- Arbitration report: Motion proposed in W/B – Judea and Samaria case
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
Invitation to join WikiProject United States
 |
Hello, Jojhutton/Archive 4! WikiProject United States, an outreach effort supporting development of United States related articles in Wikipedia, has recently been restarted after a long period of inactivity. As a user who has shown an interest in United States related topics we wanted to invite you to join us in developing content relating to the United States. If you are interested please add your Username and area of interest to the members page here. Thank you!!! |
I agree
Hi. I agree with you about the revert at WP:NCGN. If there is no response, are you willing to file an ANI about it? I will watch for a reply here, thanks. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:21, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
- I'd rather not do a whole ani on this. Yet I wouldn't rule it out completely belts hope that t editor decides to do the right thing and follow policy rather than go beyond it.Jojhutton (talk) 13:45, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
- On my talk page, the claim was made that this revert was justified due to an edit war allegedly going on since Dec 6. I've left a detailed analysis of the edit history of that page explaining how that was not so. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:32, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
- The problem was that other edits that had nothing to do with the current dispute were also reverted, leading me to believe that there may be anterior motives to the fully protected revert. Alas, I digress. I plan to revert the edit as soon as the article becomes available to edit. I do, however, have no opinion on the dispute as I have only briefly looked it over. That does not, however, excuse the fact that a fully protected page was edited against policy. Jojhutton (talk) 22:45, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
- On my talk page, the claim was made that this revert was justified due to an edit war allegedly going on since Dec 6. I've left a detailed analysis of the edit history of that page explaining how that was not so. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:32, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
My note at Night in the Museum
Hello Jojhutton. I wanted to let you know that I made my post on the talk page for the NatM's is an attempt to cover all of our bases. In my five plus years here I have seen admins who would consider the IP's removal of (uncredited) as a content dispute and not vandalism. Thus, my post gives us the ability to point out that the IP is edit warring and not responding to requests to explain their editing. Hopefully, if they continue then they will be blocked for blanking vandalism but we now have options if they don't. BTW I don't want you to get dinged for 3rr so I have added the page to my watchlist to be able to help with future protection. Thanks for your vigilance in helping to protect wikipedia and cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 18:49, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
- Oops forgot to mention that I have already added a 3rr warning to the IP's talk page. MarnetteD | Talk 18:50, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
- Completely understood. I knew where you were going, even if my message wasn't very clear. Sorry. Otherwise, its not a big huge deal as far as that page goes. The final warning seems to have cooled the ip, but who knows at this point. Besides in my opinion, I think the experience of two veteran editors sorta trumps an ips removal of information, especially without an edit summary.--Jojhutton (talk) 18:55, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for your note and your understanding. Hopefully normal (whatever that is :->) and happy editing will fill the rest of your day. MarnetteD | Talk 19:02, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
- Completely understood. I knew where you were going, even if my message wasn't very clear. Sorry. Otherwise, its not a big huge deal as far as that page goes. The final warning seems to have cooled the ip, but who knows at this point. Besides in my opinion, I think the experience of two veteran editors sorta trumps an ips removal of information, especially without an edit summary.--Jojhutton (talk) 18:55, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Sometimes I just don't understand people at all.
I mean, I assume the man can read; reading and writing are what you'd call linked skills... HalfShadow 23:47, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Jared Lee Loughner AfD / merge discussion
Hello. As a potential POV fork may be forming at a separate article for Jared Lee Loughner, I have started an AfD discussion and suggest merging that article into 2011 Tucson shooting per WP:BLP1E. KimChee (talk) 23:50, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
The Signpost: 10 January 2011
- News and notes: Anniversary preparations, new Community fellow, brief news
- In the news: Anniversary coverage begins; Wikipedia as new layer of information authority; inclusionist project
- WikiProject report: Her Majesty's Waterways
- Features and admins: Featured topic of the year
- Arbitration report: World War II case comes to a close; ban appeal, motions, and more
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
You're Welcome
Thanks for your note and you are welcome. Trolling IP's can be a pain. I hope this one tries to find better things to do with its time. Cheers and happy editing. MarnetteD | Talk 16:54, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
The Signpost: 17 January 2011
- WikiProject report: Talking wicket with WikiProject Cricket
- Features and admins: First featured picture from the legally disputed NPG images; two Chicago icons
- Arbitration report: New case: Shakespeare authorship question; lack of recent input in Longevity case
- Technology report: January Engineering Update; Dutch Hack-a-ton; brief news
The Bugle: Issue LVIII, December 2010
| |||
Notability regarding Obama Tucson speech
| This needs to be kept on the AFD, and not moved to my talk page, BTW, NO. |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Hello, You expressed the opinion that much of the material in the article, specifically about the writing of the speech, is "not notable". The general notability guideline says that topics that have been discussed in depth in reliable, independent sources are considered to be notable. The references in this article amply demonstrate its notability. Historians who win Pulitzer Prizes and write presidential biographies are indisputably reliable sources for determining the notability of a given presidential speech. The process of writing a notable speech is part of encyclopedic coverage of such a speech. Presidential speeches have been topics of genuine interest by students of U.S. history ever since George Washington. Requiring that presidential speeches be somehow as famous as the Gettysburg Address sets an impossibly high threshold, and is not a reasonable notability guideline for articles about such speeches. If the article survives AfD, it can and will be improved. In conclusion, I respectfully request that you reconsider you opposition to this article. Thank you. Cullen328 (talk) 20:53, 20 January 2011 (UTC) |
The Signpost: 24 January 2011
- News and notes: Wikimedia fellow working on cultural collaborations; video animation about Wikipedia; brief news
- WikiProject report: Life Inside the Beltway
- Features and admins: The best of the week
- Arbitration report: 23 editors submit evidence in 'Shakespeare' case, Longevity case awaits proposed decision, and more
- Technology report: File licensing metadata; Multimedia Usability project; brief news
Gay Demographics
I'm feeling lazy, but here are 2006 numbers, if you want to add those. CTJF83 chat 20:53, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
The Signpost: 31 January 2011
- The Science Hall of Fame: Building a pantheon of scientists from Wikipedia and Google Books
- WikiProject report: WikiWarriors
- Features and admins: The best of the week
- Arbitration report: Evidence in Shakespeare case moves to a close; Longevity case awaits proposed decision; AUSC RfC
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
Spam Links
To Jojhutton I have followed the Wikipedia guidelines for submission for the Jack in the Box reference =http://www.marketingworksagency.com/portfolio/jack-in-the-box-case-study The link is no different than the other pages that reference a company that worked with Jack in the Box. Can you give me more details why this is being rejected?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fredgodo (talk • contribs) 22:02, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
- You may not be aware, but wikipedia is not a place to add indiscriminate links to any random website. A link should refer directly to the subject and be of use to the reader. This particular link appears to have no use whatsoever, and actually appears to promote the website in question.--Jojhutton (talk) 22:20, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
- I have asked for a second opinion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam#Need a second opinion on a spam link at Jack in the Box.--Jojhutton (talk) 22:28, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
The Signpost: 7 February 2011
- News and notes: New General Counsel hired; reuse of Google Art Project debated; GLAM newsletter started; news in brief
- WikiProject report: Stargazing aboard WikiProject Spaceflight
- Features and admins: The best of the week
- Arbitration report: Open cases: Shakespeare authorship – Longevity; Motions on Date delinking, Eastern European mailing list
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
Need autoblock exempt or something
- Jojhutton (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
- 170.213.131.190 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
Block message:
Autoblocked because your IP address was recently used by "Easter Bunny's Mixed-Up Egg Hunt". The reason given for Easter Bunny's Mixed-Up Egg Hunt's block is: "user...".
Accept reason: Autoblock removed - I'm afraid that's the problem with dynamic addresses - you never know who been using it before you. Ronhjones (Talk) 22:20, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
I was just editing away and this happened.
Picture
I noticed you reverted the edit of Gayendorff on Pope John Paul II. (His edit was adding a picture.) You commented "Please provide more information on the talk page for this pic addition." I was just wondering what you found wrong with this picture especially since when he put the same pic on Pope John Paul II assassination attempt you reverted it and warned him about vandalism.Etineskid (talk) 22:47, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
- it wasn't so much the picture, but the caption referring to the other person as his future attempted assassin. Pretty sure that that person never attempted to assassinate the Pope. Most likely a vandal just trying to be cute. I've seen it before.
--Jojhutton (talk) 23:08, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
- Okay, I was just wondering thanks.Etineskid (talk) 03:24, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
The Signpost: 14 February 2011
- News and notes: Foundation report; gender statistics; DMCA takedowns; brief news
- In the news: Wikipedia wrongly blamed for Super Bowl gaffe; "digital natives" naive about Wikipedia; brief news
- WikiProject report: Articles for Creation
- Features and admins: RFAs and active admins—concerns expressed over the continuing drought
- Arbitration report: Proposed decisions in Shakespeare and Longevity; two new cases; motions passed, and more
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
San Diego Zoo
There definitely have been some attempts at "humor" in listing the animals at the Zoo. However it is much less than the vandalism on some other pages I watch. I'm thinking it is still at a level that can be handled by a few attentive article-watchers. And maybe we should be a little more aggressive about posting vandalism or joke warnings on their talk pages? About deleting the lists of animals, I don't think I'd favor that - even though as you say the info is completely unverified, and also likely to be changing all the time as animals are acquired, sold, and die. The lists still seem to me to be (like the Planet Earth in the Hitchhiker's Guide) "mostly harmless." However, it might be an interesting idea to bring up on the talk page. Thanks for keeping such a good eye on a subject dear to many hearts! --MelanieN (talk) 16:25, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
TESB and ROTJ
Please don't start an edit war over something that you are obviously incorrect over. These tho films have always been released with the full titles including episode numbers. Marketing is another thing, and even then you'd still be incorrect, as you're leaving off the "Star Wars:" before each one. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 19:22, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
- You have shown me nothing that would be considered proof that the original release titles of the movies were in fact the full titles that you are suggesting. This is based solely on your own interpretation of the Primary source material. Also as a side item. You should only use WP:Rollback to revert vandalism and it appears thet you may have misused it on one occasion. If you want, we can go to arbitration over this matter, but without a plethora of sources to back up your claim, I don't see how it would matter, since your single 1980 source cannot and will not overrule the hundreds of thousands of secondary sources that say exactly the opposite.--Jojhutton (talk) 19:28, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
- This discussion is now over: original copyright records for the films show the full titles. Star Wars Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back and Star Wars Episode VI: Return of the Jedi. Case closed. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 19:50, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
February 2011
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Irvin Kershner. Users who edit disruptively or refuse to collaborate with others may be blocked if they continue.
In particular, the three-revert rule states that:
- Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
- Editors violating the rule will usually be blocked for 24 hours for a first incident.
- Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes. Work towards wording, and content that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 14:36, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
- actually you specifically requested an additional citation and I provided one. Then you warn me about 3RR when you made the same about of recessions and removal if sources to the same article. Looks as if you are trying to use a warning template as a way to win a discussion. TSK TSK. Jojhutton (talk) 14:59, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
May I edit on a news story?
I just heard on the radio that the actress who played Melanie in Gone with the Wind died, if it turns out to have been a faux report, my apology's. Tinki Winki (talk) 23:52, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
- It can only be added if it is accompanied by an inline citation. Just because you heard it on the radio, doesn't mean it can be verified by anyone who reads the article.--Jojhutton (talk) 23:55, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
Alright and my apology's, I take such matters about one of my most favourite of actresses very seriously too!, It was an honest error. Tinki Winki (talk) 00:00, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
- No, I like her too,which is why she is on my watch list. Yet you see wikipedia gets a reputation for not being accurate because anyone can add anything they want. Well thats only half true. Wikipedias policy is that anyone can edit, but there are policies and guidelines that determine how to edit. One of the biggies is verifiability. Especially when it comes to potentially libelous and damaging information. I give you credit for contacting me and asking for clarification. I looked online and couldn't find anything, but that doesn't mean its not true. My advice to you is to keep looking through the internet and something may turn up one way or another, but until it does she's still alive according to wikipedia. Just to let you know, we kept Richard Winters alive for ten extra days because no-one could confirm it with a source.--Jojhutton (talk) 00:08, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
The Bugle: Volume LVIX, January 2011
|
To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 16:02, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
WP:AOW
Hi, I'm a new member of WP:AOW. I've noticed that the stub templates have been proposed for rename ... no problem, but the stub categories have also been nominated for deletion. Could I get your help to oppose the category deletions (here: Wikipedia:Stub_types_for_deletion/Log/2011/February/15) --Hutcher (talk) 17:23, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Hi. Regarding this edit, there is an established consensus at the Baseball WikiProject not to link team names to team seasons in this matter. There are, unfortunately, a few editors (not yourself) who persist in doing so, and so we have many articles that are still linked in this manner that need cleanup. I did revert your edit, but I wanted to let you know why so that, in the future, if you see links of this type, it would be of great help to the project if you removed them. Thank you! — KV5 • Talk • 17:46, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
- I also just noticed your strings of edits to the divisional and wild card articles. Sorry to roll them all back, but again, a consensus exists against them. If you have a specific question for me, feel free to ask at my talk or, alternatively, if you have a question about the current state of consensus, you can bring up the matter at WT:MLB. Thanks. — KV5 • Talk • 17:52, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Message added 00:17, 22 February 2011 (UTC)). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Post on my Page
Hello Jojhutton,
what bestows me the honour (that's shi* or? got it from the dictionary) that you posted on my talk page? I'm not very much active in the English Wikipedia, more in German. But I also did some edits in the English Wikipedia of course (If I see errors), because I use the English Wikipedia as a Source in many cases I see quite a lot of errors or outdated information :) However, how did it come you choose me?
And by the way, is there no "sighting" needed generally in English Wikipedia? In German Wikipedia any change has to be checked by someone who got the right to "sight" changes, and some sites can be only changed by special stuff (I think pages like Adolf Hitler of course, George W. Bush and so on, problematic sites) but after a while if you fulfill some criterias (a number of correct edits, of which not many have been rejected) you get the status that your edits are "auto-sighted", thats my Status in German Wikipedia... here anyone can change everything?! Kilon22 (talk) 13:06, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
- You are correct. Anyone can edit the English Wikipedia. I'm not familiar with other versions and how they operate, but u can tell you that the English version has similar policies towards editing. You call it "auto-sighted" we call it "auto-confirmed". This means that a new user must have at least 10 edits and 3 days before they can edit "semi-protected" pages. Most pages on Wikipedia are not protected, so it's not hard to get the 10 edits you need. Your account seems to have achieved these goals, so congrats and I hope you have funJojhutton (talk) 13:41, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
The Signpost: 21 February 2011
- News and notes: Gender gap and sexual images; India consultant; brief news
- In the news: Egyptian revolution and Wikimania 2008; Jimmy Wales' move to the UK, Africa and systemic bias; brief news
- WikiProject report: More than numbers: WikiProject Mathematics
- Features and admins: The best of the week
- Arbitration report: Longevity and Shakespeare cases close; what do these decisions tell us?
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
Hi, regarding your message to Xantioppe — since that user is the only author of substantive content on Angela darling, blanking the page can be taken as a deletion request, so I've nominated it for speedy deletion under G7. Feezo (Talk) 01:13, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
- No problem. I hope I didn't mess anything up. I was using Huggle, and usually if the page only has one author, Huggle won't allow me to rollback,but I think that there were intermittent edits. Sorry.--Jojhutton (talk) 01:15, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
- Don't worry, I left a note on the user's talk page explaining what happened :) Cheers, Feezo (Talk) 01:38, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
San Diego Zoo
Great job cleaning up the San Diego Zoo article! Thanks for doing that! --MelanieN (talk) 05:54, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks.--Jojhutton (talk) 12:37, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
The Signpost: 28 February 2011
- News and notes: Newbies vs. patrollers; Indian statistics; brief news
- Arbitration statistics: Arbitration Committee hearing fewer cases; longer decision times
- WikiProject report: In Tune with WikiProject Classical Music
- Features and admins: The best of the week
- Arbitration report: AUSC applications open; interim desysopping; two pending cases
- Technology report: HTML5 adopted but soon reverted; brief news
It's a Small World
Hi. I was wondering if you'd like to comment on the discussion at Talk:it's a Small World#Capitalization. I have noticed that you have reverted an edit by Disneywizard today and I thought you may wish to comment on whether the article should feature title case or lower case. Thanks Themeparkgc Talk 08:30, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
1900
Right, but not quite for the right reason. The American League in 1900 was the renamed Western League, a minor league operating under the National Agreement. In 1901 they broke away from it and declared themselves a major league. If the NL champion had played the AL champion in 1900, it would be like if the 2009 New York Yankees had had a "world series" against the AAA champion Durham Bulls. If there were to have been any "world series" or equivalent in 1900, it would likely have been between the first and second place teams in the National League. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:04, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
- Perhaps, but there certainly wasn't a 1900 Chicago White Stockings season that played in the American League that year, which is what the article was alleging.--Jojhutton (talk) 17:07, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
- Such an article could theoretically be written, especially as the club won the league championship. But the 1900 season is typically considered a footnote, as the league made no claims to being major... although, if the National League weren't so clueless, they should have seen it coming. The question at this point is whether there was any kind of intra-league "world series" in 1900. I don't know the answer to that question. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:03, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
- It could be written for that team, but as you said, the team played in a minor league, so its best to keep the article focused on the major leagues or else we will open up a huge can of worms. As far as a series between the two leagues? I've never heard of any.--Jojhutton (talk) 18:07, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
- No, I meant intra-league as in the first and second place teams in the NL squaring off in a "world series", as they had several times during the 1890s. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:01, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
- It could be written for that team, but as you said, the team played in a minor league, so its best to keep the article focused on the major leagues or else we will open up a huge can of worms. As far as a series between the two leagues? I've never heard of any.--Jojhutton (talk) 18:07, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
- Such an article could theoretically be written, especially as the club won the league championship. But the 1900 season is typically considered a footnote, as the league made no claims to being major... although, if the National League weren't so clueless, they should have seen it coming. The question at this point is whether there was any kind of intra-league "world series" in 1900. I don't know the answer to that question. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:03, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
NL pennant winners links
I reverted the change for now as it'd be a pretty big shift in how we write baseball articles (but that's obviously easily undone if the project decides it likes the change). Posted a straw poll on the issue here to try and settle the matter. Staxringold talkcontribs 23:28, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
- this was already resolved as the links were found appropriate.--Jojhutton (talk) 00:37, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
- Nothing was "found", and there was no resolution as you claim. There is no finding of fact involved, only discussion which stagnated with no clear consensus. Perhaps you should read WP:CONSENSUS to see what's actually involved in generating one. — KV5 • Talk • 00:49, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
- Only the two of you disagreed and apparently only the two of you don't think that there was a consensus against you. Not a coincidence, in fact in most cases I have seen, that would be labeled as disruptive. Time to get on with it. You didn't get support in the first consensus, so you try try again. How many times will you try until you get the result you are looking for?--Jojhutton (talk) 00:55, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
- Honestly, Jojhutton, your tendentiousness isn't worth my time. No one is gaming the system here, but you refuse to believe that anyone could disagree with you. So, for now, I'm ignoring you, and I await the day when you argue your way into a well-deserved wave goodbye. — KV5 • Talk • 00:57, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
- Threat?--Jojhutton (talk) 01:04, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
- A pathetic attempt to cast blame. Take your business elsewhere; this fish isn't biting. — KV5 • Talk • 01:19, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
- This was settled. You two decided to bring this up again. Its a classic attempt at consensus shopping, and by the looks of the straw poll, no ones biting that either.--Jojhutton (talk) 01:21, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
- A pathetic attempt to cast blame. Take your business elsewhere; this fish isn't biting. — KV5 • Talk • 01:19, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
- Threat?--Jojhutton (talk) 01:04, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
- Honestly, Jojhutton, your tendentiousness isn't worth my time. No one is gaming the system here, but you refuse to believe that anyone could disagree with you. So, for now, I'm ignoring you, and I await the day when you argue your way into a well-deserved wave goodbye. — KV5 • Talk • 00:57, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
- Only the two of you disagreed and apparently only the two of you don't think that there was a consensus against you. Not a coincidence, in fact in most cases I have seen, that would be labeled as disruptive. Time to get on with it. You didn't get support in the first consensus, so you try try again. How many times will you try until you get the result you are looking for?--Jojhutton (talk) 00:55, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
- Nothing was "found", and there was no resolution as you claim. There is no finding of fact involved, only discussion which stagnated with no clear consensus. Perhaps you should read WP:CONSENSUS to see what's actually involved in generating one. — KV5 • Talk • 00:49, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
- Huh? I really don't care, KV asked me what to do so I did that. In what universe was there a consensus? And if there was it'll be settled. Again, don't care. Staxringold talkcontribs 02:12, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
- FYI, in what universe is a 6-2 split on inclusion not ever been a consensus? Some users need to stop gaming and shopping for a new consensus.--Jojhutton (talk) 21:22, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
You removed two portions of the article, with no sourcing or documentation to support the removal. 1) you removed the word presumed, which was describing Noon's current status as retired. Is he, in fact, retired? Has Noon made any announcement to that effect? Do you have a source? I've been looking for it for a while. As I have documented in many other articles, athletes without results for a span of time can and do return, after drug suspensions, possible jail time or just after they get their head together. So without specific documentation, all we can do is presume, so in an encyclopedic, truth in information sense, that word is quite appropriate. 2) you removed the fact that Randy Barnes was also suspended, actually a lifetime ban, for a second violations of performance enhancing drugs. Why is it relevant? As documented earlier in the article, Barnes was a mentor to Noon. He actually lived in the family house for a period of time. This isn't a court case, in the court of public opinion, guilt by association is significant. In the seedy, hidden world of PEDs, we report what is known. There is a clear association between the two stars at the time of both of their successes. Both were suspended. Barnes twice, a sourced statement (which you removed). Noon, the younger, now 39, has not participated (or been tested subsequently) since his ban went into effect. Trackinfo (talk) 17:35, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
- First off, thanks for the article. I was looking for information on Noon and the article actually answered my questions. Sceondly, I removed "Presumed" for WP:BLP reasons. It is the job of the editor adding information to an article to provide the source, not the other way around. Third, as far as the Barnes removal goes, yes they have a connection, but the sources didn't confirm that their positive tests had anything to do with one another. Its undue weight and original research to attempt to connect the two without a specific citation that says so.--Jojhutton (talk) 17:43, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
- Maybe "former" would work better. Although if he hasn't competed since the mid-1990s, it seems likely that he's as good as retired. The OP could have maybe gotten around the implications about Barnes by saying, "coincidentally". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:55, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
- Ya, I found mentioning the Barnes banning as a bit odd,since the two bans were not connected, despite the other connection. As far as being retired, I hadn't realized that there weren't any sources proclaiming him retired, so it may in the best interests of BLP to still refer to him as active.--Jojhutton (talk) 18:11, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
- When did he last compete? Was it in the mid-1990s? Keeping in mind that he turns 40 this year, although that didn't stop Al Oerter. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:13, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
- In re-reading the stuff about Barnes, it's clearly an attempt to connect the dots between them, and does seem like "original synthesis" (which the OP actually acknowledges) unless there's a source that specifically links the two men. As you said. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:18, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
- I would be ok with refering to him as retired, given his inactivity, but would be more comfortable with a source, if you know what I mean?--Jojhutton (talk) 18:23, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
- Is "retired" better than "former"? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:37, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
- Not sure. They are on in the same as far as I know.--Jojhutton (talk) 18:44, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
- With no sourcing, what is wrong with the original phrasing of presumed retired? He hasn't been active during his 30's, the peak years for many shot putters. His last official act with the sport was getting banned for 4 years in 1997 (expiring 2000), but I haven't found a source where he said he's retired. Whether the word is there or not, sans sourcing, that is what we are doing. Trackinfo (talk) 18:52, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
- I like "former" better if the guy has never overtly announced retirement. I don't like "presumed" because that's an editorial comment. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:54, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)"Presumed" may be appropriate in some cases, but I am personally concerned with WP:BLP in this case. If I was Noon, and I saw that, I might be offended. Either he's retired or not. Perhaps saying "inactive" may help.--Jojhutton (talk) 18:57, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
- Hey, that's good. "Inactive" is verifiable by any reasonable use of the term. I think that's a winner. In fact, maybe it should become the standard for guys like Bonds who have not (as far as I know) officially retired, but have not been active for, say, 2 or more years. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:04, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
- Okay, lets try inactive, because thats easily verifiable.--Jojhutton (talk) 19:34, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
- Hey, that's good. "Inactive" is verifiable by any reasonable use of the term. I think that's a winner. In fact, maybe it should become the standard for guys like Bonds who have not (as far as I know) officially retired, but have not been active for, say, 2 or more years. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:04, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
- With no sourcing, what is wrong with the original phrasing of presumed retired? He hasn't been active during his 30's, the peak years for many shot putters. His last official act with the sport was getting banned for 4 years in 1997 (expiring 2000), but I haven't found a source where he said he's retired. Whether the word is there or not, sans sourcing, that is what we are doing. Trackinfo (talk) 18:52, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
- Not sure. They are on in the same as far as I know.--Jojhutton (talk) 18:44, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
- Is "retired" better than "former"? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:37, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
- I would be ok with refering to him as retired, given his inactivity, but would be more comfortable with a source, if you know what I mean?--Jojhutton (talk) 18:23, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
- In re-reading the stuff about Barnes, it's clearly an attempt to connect the dots between them, and does seem like "original synthesis" (which the OP actually acknowledges) unless there's a source that specifically links the two men. As you said. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:18, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
- When did he last compete? Was it in the mid-1990s? Keeping in mind that he turns 40 this year, although that didn't stop Al Oerter. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:13, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
- Ya, I found mentioning the Barnes banning as a bit odd,since the two bans were not connected, despite the other connection. As far as being retired, I hadn't realized that there weren't any sources proclaiming him retired, so it may in the best interests of BLP to still refer to him as active.--Jojhutton (talk) 18:11, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
- Maybe "former" would work better. Although if he hasn't competed since the mid-1990s, it seems likely that he's as good as retired. The OP could have maybe gotten around the implications about Barnes by saying, "coincidentally". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:55, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
Dawg, why'd you revert my edit? That song's real name is "Shitted On 'Em", listen to it to make sure. The name "Did It On 'Em" was only given for the clean version. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.118.90.172 (talk) 20:32, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
- Dawg?--Jojhutton (talk) 20:36, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
- Maybe he means Deputy Dawg? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:40, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
RE:March 2011
I'd just like to note that that edit wasn't mine, it was an IP's edit who placed a personal life section at the bottom of the page, I was simply just pasting it in proper place.--GoldenGlory84 talk 01:04, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
- I took a look at the edit history of the page and the edit had previously been removed as unsourced. Best not re-add unsourced information, especially without an edit summery.--Jojhutton (talk) 01:35, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
The Signpost: 7 March 2011
- News and notes: Foundation looking for "storyteller" and research fellows; new GLAM newsletter; brief news
- Deletion controversy: Deletion of article about website angers gaming community
- WikiProject report: Talking with WikiProject Feminism
- Features and admins: The best of the week
- Arbitration report: New case opened after interim desysop last week; three pending cases
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Fox and the Hound
The editor responsible has been chased to hell and gone for over three years now, socking through mobile networks. It wasn't a rash decision on my part. I commented at WP:ANI#78.155.239.29 - fake credits added to to "The Fox and the Hound" if you want to comment there.—Kww(talk) 01:35, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
- In this case I'll have to quote exactly what WP:FULL says:
- Brief periods of full protection are used in rare cases when a large number of autoconfirmed accounts are used to make a sustained vandalism attack on an article. Persistent vandalism, or the possibility of future vandalism for highly trafficked articles, rarely provides a basis for full-protection.
- The key words are Sustained vandalism attack and Brief periods of full protection. Todays vandlism was not a sustained attack by auto-confirmed users, but was simple persistent vandalism.--Jojhutton (talk) 01:45, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
- There's no rush: even if you think a week would have been better, that won't make any difference for five days. Let's let the ANI discussion run a bit longer. LessHeardVanU and I seem to be aligned; you, MuzeMike, and N419BH seem to be aligned on the other. What would help persuade me would be if you could point out any harm that you expect the protection to cause. Looking at the history and the article, I would bet that protection or not, there wouldn't be any meaningful change in the article over the next 6 months. If it's just a philosophical issue, I can respect that too, but it obviously isn't as persuasive.—Kww(talk) 17:53, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
- I have no problem with discussion, but my question was whether or not that the current ANI is the best, venue to continue the discussion. Perhaps AN would be best to get a better scope to the protection question. Jojhutton (talk) 18:48, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
- There's no rush: even if you think a week would have been better, that won't make any difference for five days. Let's let the ANI discussion run a bit longer. LessHeardVanU and I seem to be aligned; you, MuzeMike, and N419BH seem to be aligned on the other. What would help persuade me would be if you could point out any harm that you expect the protection to cause. Looking at the history and the article, I would bet that protection or not, there wouldn't be any meaningful change in the article over the next 6 months. If it's just a philosophical issue, I can respect that too, but it obviously isn't as persuasive.—Kww(talk) 17:53, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
The Signpost: 14 March 2011
- News and notes: Foundation reports editor trends, technology plans and communication changes; brief news
- Features and admins: The best of the week
- Arbitration report: New case on AE sanction handling; AUSC candidates; proposed decision in Kehrli 2 and Monty Hall problem
- Technology report: Left-aligned edit links and bugfixes abound; brief news
Page Progress in Mid-March
Your attention and input is needed again on the Thomas Jefferson talk page. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:28, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks
Hi Jojhutton, thank you for your time and efforts working on this [1]. Unfortunately I'm unable to participate anymore but I know that you guys will work something out and the naming disputes will be just a bad memory. All the best and good luck.--Jacurek (talk) 10:49, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the assistance you posted on my talk page. This place is a bit to take in at first and all help is appreciated. I look forward to working beside you around here. Jarland (talk) 05:19, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue LX, February 2011
|
To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 22:02, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
MOS:FLAG
You'll be fighting a losing battle, because you'll have go through between 10,000-15,000 team articles worldwide where flags are used in infoboxes. MOS:FLAG says "As a rule of thumb, flag icons should not be used infoboxes", not "Flag icons should NEVER be used in infoboxes". It has been the standard practice for editors attached to the WP:FOOTY project to allow flag indicators in team infoboxes because editors and readers consider the nationality of owners/coaches to be integral to the identity of the team, and something that is important to convey. It won't just be me - every time you try to remove flags, a footy editor will revert you immediately. JonBroxton (talk) 01:08, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
- Well it looks as if I have a lot of edits to get done. Its best you don't revert back against the guideline, unless you have a policy, guideline, or previous consensus discussion that supersedes MOS:FLAG. And by the way, EVERY guideline says a rule of thumb, or should probably follow, so its pointy to try and twist the guidelines wording to work in the favor of flags.--Jojhutton (talk) 01:13, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
- There is no written policy, it's just standard practice, and has been for years and years. I'm not twisting the words - just following the spirit. Unless something is explicitly forbidden, there should be leeway to not follow the manual of style, if not following it allows information that is important to the topic at hand to be conveyed. After all, Wiki is supposed to be useful. I don't know how much you know about soccer, but nationality issues are very important to the sport due to its world-wide scope. Indicating the nationality of the coach in the infobox can, in many cases, allow readers familiar with the sport to quickly have an insight into the way the team plays, amongst other things. Again - this isn't just a "me" thing. This is a project-wide thing amongst the vast majority of soccer editors across the world. JonBroxton (talk) 01:20, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
- Still, I would feel more comfortable with something that was written and in concrete detail. Even a past consensus I could respect, but without anything other than, it's just standard practice, I can't see how the guideline should not be followed. I was looking through WP:FOOTY for a few minutes, hoping to find something that would say that would say that the flags should be in the infoboxes, but couldn't find anything, but I'll keep looking. This template is from the wikiproject on clubs and doesn't say anything about having flags in the info boxes.
- I'm not trying to be difficult with you, I am just a strict follower of policy and guidelines and try and clean up the wiki as best as can, when I can. Perhaps you should try and get some guideline or consensus passed at the wikiproject, so as to have something to link to when this occurs again.--Jojhutton (talk) 01:32, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
- There is no written policy, it's just standard practice, and has been for years and years. I'm not twisting the words - just following the spirit. Unless something is explicitly forbidden, there should be leeway to not follow the manual of style, if not following it allows information that is important to the topic at hand to be conveyed. After all, Wiki is supposed to be useful. I don't know how much you know about soccer, but nationality issues are very important to the sport due to its world-wide scope. Indicating the nationality of the coach in the infobox can, in many cases, allow readers familiar with the sport to quickly have an insight into the way the team plays, amongst other things. Again - this isn't just a "me" thing. This is a project-wide thing amongst the vast majority of soccer editors across the world. JonBroxton (talk) 01:20, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
The Signpost: 21 March 2011
- WikiProject report: Medicpedia — WikiProject Medicine
- Features and admins: Best of the week
- Arbitration report: One closed case, one suspended case, and two other cases
- Technology report: What is: localisation?; the proposed "personal image filter" explained; and more in brief
Thanks!
Thanks for the welcome, sorry if I write bad, you do not know much English.
Mexican-American War
"You might very well think that; I couldn't possibly comment." Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:09, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
- Seems to be the thing to do when someone thinks that the argument is going against them.--Joj Hutton 21:58, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
"Federal authorities and a Secretary of State stated under oath there were AMD in Irak, too."
AMD? No way; I'm sure it was Intel :-) Chzz ► 17:45, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
- Of course it was. Could have been Enron, trying hide Lollipops in Sadams kitchen sink too.--JOJ Hutton 22:09, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
The Signpost: 28 March 2011
- News and notes: Berlin conference highlights relation between chapters and Foundation; annual report; brief news
- In the news: Sue Gardner interviewed; Imperial College student society launched; Indian languages; brief news
- WikiProject report: Linking with WikiProject Wikify
- Features and admins: Featured list milestone
- Arbitration report: New case opens; Monty Hall problem case closes – what does the decision tell us?
Confusion
Regarding this edit to Simon Mathews with an edit summary of "speedy tag was already removed once, not suppose to readd". You are mistaken: it is the {{prod}} tag which is not to be put back. There is no such rule for speedy tags. Sgroupace (talk) 10:07, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
April Fools' Day
Discussed. Funny how every time I actually do open a discussion, no one ever touches the damn thing. Which is why I have to resort to wikitantrums and bitching before anyone does anything. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 20:24, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Help
Yes thanks for the tutorials i will indeed use them thanks a lot--BloodofHeroes (talk) 00:42, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
The Signpost: 4 April 2011
- News and notes: 1 April activities; RIAA takedown notice; brief news
- Editor retention: Fighting the decline by restricting article creation?
- WikiProject report: Out of this world — WikiProject Solar System
- Features and admins: The best of the week
- Arbitration report: AUSC appointments, new case, proposed decision for Coanda case, and motion regarding CU/OS
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Signpost: 11 April 2011
- Recent research: Research literature surveys; drug reliability; editor roles; BLPs; Muhammad debate analyzed
- WikiProject report: WikiProject Japan
- Features and admins: The best of the week
- Arbitration report: Two cases closed – what does the Coanda decision tell us?
- Technology report: The Toolserver explained; brief news
Re:
Not exactly... what I did was not "revert again", but restore something which you removed... (although I suppose that's just splitting hairs, I see a difference between those two actions...) Magus732 (talk) 18:32, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
- It would also seem that after looking through your talk page, you have been at odds with others over this same issue. If the edits are contentious, its best not to make them, and revert when others revert you.--JOJ Hutton 18:37, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
Barnstar
|
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar | |
| Thank you for your work on the September 11 attacks article! MONGO 23:24, 12 April 2011 (UTC) |
Invite
|
Please accept this invite to join the Conservatism WikiProject, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to conservatism broadly construed. Lionel (talk) 00:54, 19 April 2011 (UTC) |
The Signpost: 18 April 2011
- News and notes: Commons milestone; newbie contributions assessed; German community to decide on €200,000 budget; brief news
- In the news: Wikipedia accurate on US politics, plagiarized in court, and compared to Glass Bead Game; brief news
- WikiProject report: An audience with the WikiProject Council
- Features and admins: The best of the week
- Arbitration report: Case comes to a close after 3 weeks - what does the decision tell us?
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
File:Mickey Mouse Costume.JPG missing description details
If the information is not provided, the image may eventually be proposed for deletion, a situation which is not desirable, and which can easily be avoided.
If you have any questions please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:15, 20 April 2011 (UTC)User:Jojhutton/Sandbox
Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia. We always appreciate when users upload new images. However, it appears that one or more of the images you have recently uploaded or added to an article may fail our non-free image policy. Most often, this involves editors uploading or using a copyrighted image of a living person. For other possible reasons, please read up on our Non-free image criteria. Please note that we take very seriously our criteria on non-free image uploads and users who repeatedly upload or misuse non-free images may be blocked from editing. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. ΔT The only constant 14:56, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
- Ah....The Image Nazis have struck again. Apparently its impossible to improve wikipedia by attempting to format and size images in a sandbox. I guess common sense loses again.--JOJ Hutton 23:29, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
The Signpost: 25 April 2011
- News and notes: Survey of French Wikipedians; first Wikipedian-in-Residence at Smithsonian; brief news
- WikiProject report: WikiProject Somerset
- Features and admins: The best of the week
- Arbitration report: Request to amend prior case; further voting in AEsh case
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Bugle: Issue LXI, March 2011
|
To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 03:53, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
The Signpost: 2 May 2011
- News and notes: Picture of the Year voting begins; Internet culture covered in Sweden and consulted in Russia; brief news
- WikiProject report: The Physics of a WikiProject: WikiProject Physics
- Features and admins: The best of the week
- Arbitration report: Two new cases open – including Tree shaping case
- Technology report: Call for RTL developers, varied sign-up pages and news in brief
Your submission at Articles for creation
Hi Jojhutton, !
You recently made a submission to Articles for Creation — the page is Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Narayanasharma — and it will be reviewed by a volunteer soon.
However... it doesn't seem to have correctly formatted references.
All articles on Wikipedia should have inline, numbered references after facts, showing the 'reliable source' (newspaper, book, etc.) where the information can be checked.
If you put a reference like this;
Chzz is 98 years old.<ref> "The book of Chzz", Aardvark Books, 2009. </ref> He likes tea. <ref> [http://www.nicecupofteaandasitdown.com Tea website] </ref>
...then the reference will automatically be displayed as a small number[1], and the number will link to the details, wherever there is a {{reflist}} — there should be one of those in a section titled == References ==.
You can see that example in action on this page: user:chzz/demo/simpleref.
For more help, see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners.
It is a very important policy of Wikipedia that all information is verifiable — i.e., that all material added to articles must be attributable to a source with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.
Your submission will be reviewed as soon as possible, and we'll try to help with it, but it would help us a lot if you could add inline references.
If you need any other kind of help, just put {{helpme}} at the end of this page, followed by a question. Best, Chzz ► 02:06, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
File:Mickey Mouse Costume.JPG missing description details
If the information is not provided, the image may eventually be proposed for deletion, a situation which is not desirable, and which can easily be avoided.
If you have any questions please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:37, 6 May 2011 (UTC)The Signpost: 9 May 2011
- In the news: Billionaire trying to sue Wikipedians; "Critical Point of View" book published; World Bank contest; brief news
- WikiProject report: Game Night at WikiProject Board and Table Games
- Features and admins: Featured articles bounce back
- Arbitration report: AEsh case comes to a close - what does the decision tell us?
Invitation
Hi, I noticed your contributions and thought you might be interested in joining WikiProject San Diego.
If you are interested in San Diego-related themes, you may want to check out the San Diego County Portal.
If you are interested in contributing more to San Diego related articles you may want to join WikiProject San Diego (signup here). RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:32, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
I see that you live in San Diego County, and as a fellow resident I would like to invite you to the WikiProject that relates to where we live. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:32, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
- Already did.--JOJ Hutton 20:52, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
Request for Article review
Hey there,
I was wondering if you could review an article for me. I know you're part of Project September 11, 2001, and I wanted to get a rating of the article for now, with any feedback that you have. I've been working on improving it, and it'd just be helpful for me, if I could get an idea for where we are, and what it'd take to get us where I want it to be.
Thank you for the time,
The Signpost: 16 May 2011
- WikiProject report: Back to Life: Reviving WikiProjects
- Features and admins: The best of the week
- Arbitration report: Motions - hyphens and dashes dispute
- Technology report: Berlin Hackathon; April Engineering Report; brief news
Possibly unfree File:Monte Vista Monarch.JPG
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Monte Vista Monarch.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. --Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:25, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
File:Hutton, J.JPG missing description details
If the information is not provided, the image may eventually be proposed for deletion, a situation which is not desirable, and which can easily be avoided.
If you have any questions please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:26, 17 May 2011 (UTC)The Bugle: Issue LXII, April 2011
|
To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 22:50, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
Balboa Park GLAM project
Hello, I hope you are doing well. I recently left a message at WP:SANDIEGO's talk page about a new GLAM collaboration with Balboa Park. I'm contacting you to determine if you'd be interested in participating in the project. The staff there would like to meet with a group of Wikipedians to eventually lead to tours of the museums, image donations, editing collaborations, contests, and other events. If you have any interest at all in helping in any capacity, please list your name at WP:GLAM/BP so we can determine what size group we're looking at. As this collaboration has just started, if you have any questions, comments, ideas, etc., please leave them on the project's talk page. Thank you! --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 04:57, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
The Signpost: 23 May 2011
- News and notes: GLAM workshop; legal policies; brief news
- In the news: Death of the expert?; superinjunctions saga continues; World Heritage status petitioned and debated; brief news
- WikiProject report: WikiProject Formula One
- Featured content: The best of the week
- Arbitration report: Injunction – preliminary protection levels for BLP articles when removing PC
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
Welcome message
While I do appreciate the welcome message, it's about 5 years too late. =P Jamesa7171 (talk) 02:00, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Lincoln Memorial section
We are currently attempting to bring the Abraham Lincoln article to FA status and are trying to establish consensus regarding images. Your consensus and opinion is needed on the Abraham Lincoln talk page. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:43, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
The Signpost: 30 May 2011
- News and notes: ArbCom referendum goes live; US National Archives residency; financial planning; brief news
- In the news: Collaboration with academia; world heritage; xkcd; eG8 summit; ISP subpoena; brief news
- WikiProject report: The Royal Railway
- Featured content: Whipping fantasies, American–British naval rivalry, and a medieval mix of purity and eroticism
- Arbitration report: Update – injunction from last week has expired
- Technology report: Wikimedia down for an hour; What is: Wikipedia Offline?
The Bugle: Issue LXIII, May 2011
|
To begin or stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 22:52, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
The Signpost: 6 June 2011
- Board elections: Time to vote
- News and notes: Board resolution on controversial content; WMF Summer of Research; indigenous workshop; brief news
- Recent research: Various metrics of quality and trust; leadership; nerd stereotypes
- WikiProject report: Make your own book with Wikiproject Wikipedia-Books
- Featured content: The best of the week
- Arbitration report: Two cases pending resolution; temporary desysop; dashes/hyphens update
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Signpost: 13 June 2011
- News and notes: Wikipedians 90% male and largely altruist; 800 public policy students add 8.8 million bytes; brief news
- WikiProject report: WikiProject Aircraft
- Featured content: Featured lists hit the main page
- Arbitration report: More workshop proposals in Tree shaping case; further votes in PD of other case
- Technology report: 1.18 extension bundling; mobile testers needed; brief news
WikiProject United States History
Greetings, It was recently suggested that WikiProject United States History might be inactive or semiactive and that it might be beneficial to include it in the list of projects supported by WikiProject United States.
I have started a discussion and will contact each of the active members for their comments and input on the suggestion. Please take a moment and add your comments to the discussion or feel free to contact me if you have any questions. --Kumioko (talk) 19:43, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Suggestion for WikiProject United States to support WikiProject US Presidents
Greetings, It was recently suggested that WikiProject US Presidents might be inactive or semiactive and it might be beneficial to include it in the list of projects supported by WikiProject United States. I have started a discussion on the projects talk page soliciting the opinions of the members of the project if this project would be interested in being supported by WikiProject United States. Please feel free to comment on your opinions about this suggestion. --Kumioko (talk) 02:52, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
The Signpost: 20 June 2011
- News and notes: WMF Board election results; Indian campus ambassadors gear up; Wikimedia UK plans; Malayalam Wikisource CD; brief news
- WikiProject report: The Elemental WikiProject
- Featured content: The best of the week
- Arbitration report: One case comes to a close; initiator of a new case blocked as sockpuppet
US National Archives collaboration
 |
United States National Archives WikiProject |
|---|---|
|
The Signpost: 27 June 2011
- WikiProject report: The Continuous Convention: WikiProject Comics
- Featured content: The best of the week
- Arbitration report: Proposed decision for Tree shaping case
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Signpost: 4 July 2011
- News and notes: Picture of the Year 2010; data challenge; brief news
- WikiProject report: The Star-Spangled WikiProject
- Featured content: Two newly promoted portals
- Arbitration report: Arb resigns while mailing list leaks continue; Motion re: admin
Suggestion for WikiProject United States to support WikiProject American Old West
It was recently suggested that WikiProject American Old West might be inactive or semiactive and it might be beneficial to include it in the list of projects supported by WikiProject United States. I have started a discussion on the projects talk page soliciting the opinions of the members of the project if this project would be interested in being supported by WikiProject United States. Please feel free to comment on your opinions about this suggestion. --Kumioko (talk) 19:46, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
The Signpost: 11 July 2011
- From the editor: Stepping down
- Higher education summit: Wikipedia in Higher Education Summit recap
- In the news: Britannica and Wikipedia compared; Putin award criticized; possible journalistic sockpuppeting
- WikiProject report: Listening to WikiProject Albums
- Featured content: The best of the week
- Arbitration report: Tree shaping case comes to a close
- Technology report: WMF works on its release strategy; secure server problems
The Bugle: Issue LXIV, June 2011
|
To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. BrownBot (talk) 23:17, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
The Signpost: 18 July 2011
- In the news: Fine art; surreptitious sanitation; the politics of kyriarchic marginalization; brief news
- WikiProject report: Earn $$$ free pharm4cy WORK FROM HOME replica watches ViAgRa!!!
- Featured content: Historic last launch of the Space Shuttle Endeavour; Teddy Roosevelt's threat to behead official; 18th-century London sex manual
- Arbitration report: Motion passed to amend 2008 case: topic ban and reminder
- Technology report: Code Review backlog almost zero; What is: Subversion?; brief news
July 2011 Newsletter for WikiProject United States
The July 2011 issue of the WikiProject United States 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.
The Signpost: 25 July 2011
- Wikimedian in Residence interview: Wikimedian in Residence on Open Science: an interview with Daniel Mietchen
- Recent research: Talk page interactions; Wikipedia at the Open Knowledge Conference; Summer of Research
- WikiProject report: Musing with WikiProject Philosophy
- Featured content: The best of the week
- Arbitration report: New case opened; hyphens and dashes update; motion
- Technology report: Protocol-relative URLs; GSoC updates; bad news for SMW fans; brief news
I have replied to your comment. Mato (talk) 15:12, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
The Signpost: 01 August 2011
- In the news: Consensus of Wikipedia authors questioned about Shakespeare authorship; 10 biggest edit wars on Wikipedia; brief news
- Research interview: The Huggle Experiment: interview with the research team
- WikiProject report: Little Project, Big Heart — WikiProject Croatia
- Featured content: Featured pictures is back in town
- Arbitration report: Proposed decision submitted for one case
- Technology report: Developers descend on Haifa; wikitech-l discussions; brief news
The Signpost: 08 August 2011
- News and notes: Wikimania a success; board letter controversial; and evidence showing bitten newbies don't stay
- In the news: Israeli news focuses on Wikimania; worldwide coverage of contributor decline and gender gap; brief news
- WikiProject report: Shooting the breeze with WikiProject Firearms
- Featured content: The best of the week
- Arbitration report: Manipulation of BLPs case opened; one case comes to a close
- Technology report: Wikimania technology roundup; brief news
The Bugle: Issue LXV, July 2011
|
To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. BrownBot (talk) 22:22, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
The Signpost: 15 August 2011
- Women and Wikipedia: New Research, WikiChix
- WikiProject report: The Oregonians
- Featured content: The best of the week
- Arbitration report: Abortion case opened, two more still in progress
- Technology report: Forks, upload slowness and mobile redirection
The Signpost: 22 August 2011
- News and notes: Girl Geeks edit while they dine, candidates needed for forthcoming steward elections, image referendum opens
- WikiProject report: Images in Motion – WikiProject Animation
- Featured content: JJ Harrison on avian photography
- Arbitration report: After eleven moves, name for islands now under arbitration
- Technology report: Engineering report, sprint, and more testers needed
The Signpost: 29 August 2011
- News and notes: Abuse filter on all Wikimedia sites; Foundation's report for July; editor survey results
- Recent research: Article promotion by collaboration; deleted revisions; Wikipedia's use of open access; readers unimpressed by FAs; swine flu anxiety
- Opinion essay: How an attempt to answer one question turned into a quagmire
- WikiProject report: WikiProject Tennis
- Featured content: The best of the week
- Arbitration report: Four existing cases
- Technology report: The bugosphere, new mobile site and MediaWiki 1.18 close in on deployment
Invitation to comment
Based on your contributions at Talk:Jared_Lee_Loughner/Archive_2#Fair_use_status_of_Pima_County_photo, you may be interested in commenting at Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2011_August_29#File:Jared Loughner sheriff's office.jpg. Thanks, Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:26, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
Notice
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "El Capitan High School, 7-Eleven, Liberty Charter High School (La Mesa, California)". Thank you. --Tinton5 (talk) 03:57, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
September 2011 Newsletter for WikiProject United States
The September 2011 issue of the WikiProject United States 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.
The Signpost: 05 September 2011
- News and notes: 24,000 votes later and community position on image filter still unclear; first index of editor satisfaction appears positive
- WikiProject report: Riding with WikiProject London Transport
- Sister projects: Wiki Loves Monuments 2011
- Featured content: The best of the week
- Opinion essay: The copyright crisis, and why we should care
- Arbitration report: BLP case closed; Cirt-Jayen466 nearly there; AUSC reshuffle
Angry Birds Rio
A merger discussion has been initiated on the talk page for Angry Birds Rio. Your input is encouraged. --McDoobAU93 03:23, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
Edit warring
If you continue to remove content and edit war, as you have been doing on El Capitan High School, 7-Eleven, Liberty Charter High School (La Mesa, California), El Cajon Valley High School, etc, without any discussion on talk pages/discussion boards to get a consensus, then we will have to take matters into our own hands at WP:AN3 or WP:ANI. Please try to understand this so we do not have to go to these notice boards. Thank you for your cooperation and have a great day. Tinton5 (talk) 17:35, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
- You are also welcome to voice your opinion on this page. Tinton5 (talk) 19:56, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue LXVI, August 2011
|
To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. EdwardsBot (talk) 18:11, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
The Signpost: 12 September 2011
- News and notes: Foundation reports on research, Kenya trip, Mumbai Wikiconference; Canada, Hungary and Estonia; English Wikinews forked
- WikiProject report: Politics in the Pacific: WikiProject Australian Politics
- Featured content: Wikipedians explain two new featured pictures
- Arbitration report: Ohconfucius sanctions removed, Cirt desysopped 6:5 and a call for CU/OS applications
- Technology report: What is: agile development? and new mobile site goes live
- Opinion essay: The Walrus and the Carpenter
The Signpost: 19 September 2011
- From the editor: Changes to The Signpost
- News and notes: Ushahidi research tool announced, Citizendium five years on: success or failure?, and Wikimedia DC officially recognised
- Sister projects: On the Wikinews fork
- WikiProject report: Back to school
- Featured content: The best of the week
- Arbitration report: ArbCom narrowly rejects application to open new case
- Technology report: MediaWiki 1.18 deployment begins, the alleged "injustice" of WMF engineering policy, and Wikimedians warned of imminent fix to magic word
- Popular pages: Article stats for the English Wikipedia in the last year
Height and weight infobox
Hi ... I seem to have re-started a discussion that you took part in, on a different noticeboard, six months back on the possibility of adding height and weight to the baseball player infobox. Another editor helpfully pointed me to the old discussion. FYI, the current discussion is here. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:43, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
The Signpost: 26 September 2011
- Recent research: Top female Wikipedians, reverted newbies, link spam, social influence on admin votes, Wikipedians' weekends, WikiSym previews
- News and notes: WMF strikes down enwiki consensus, academic journal partnerships, and eyebrows raised over minors editing porn-related content
- In the news: Sockpuppeting journalist recants, search dominance threatened, new novels replete with Wikipedia references
- WikiProject report: A project in overdrive: WikiProject Automobiles
- Featured content: The best of the week
The Signpost: 3 October 2011
- News and notes: Italian Wikipedia shuts down over new privacy law; Wikimedia Sverige produce short Wikipedia films, Sue Gardner calls for empathy
- In the news: QRpedia launches to acclaim, Jimbo talks social media, Wikipedia attracts fungi, terriers and Greeks bearing gifts
- WikiProject report: Kia ora WikiProject New Zealand
- Featured content: Reviewers praise new featured topic: National treasures of Japan
- Arbitration report: Last call for comments on CheckUser and Oversight teams
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
Talkback
Message added 06:18, 10 October 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
The Signpost: 10 October 2011
- Opinion essay: The conservatism of Wikimedians
- News and notes: Largest ever donation to WMF, final findings of editor survey released, 'Terms of use' heavily revised
- In the news: Uproar over Italian shutdown, the varying reception of BLP mischief, and Wikipedia's doctor-evangelist
- WikiProject report: The World's Oldest People
- Featured content: The weird and the disgusting
The Signpost: 17 October 2011
- News and notes: Arabic Wikipedia gets video intros, Smithsonian gifts images, and WikiProject Conservatism scrutinized
- In the news: Why Wikipedia survives while others haven't; Wikipedia as an emerging social model; Jimbo speaks out
- WikiProject report: History in your neighborhood: WikiProject NRHP
- Featured content: Brazil's boom-time dreams of naval power: The ed17 explains the background to a new featured topic
The Signpost: 24 October 2011
- From the editors: A call for contributors
- Opinion essay: There is a deadline
- Interview: Contracting for the Foundation
- WikiProject report: Great WikiProject Logos
- Featured content: The best of the week
- Arbitration report: Abortion; request for amendment on Climate Change case
- Technology report: WMF launches coding challenge, WMDE starts hiring for major new project
The Bugle: Issue LXVII, September 2011
|
To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. EdwardsBot (talk) 02:21, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
The Signpost: 31 October 2011
- Opinion essay: The monster under the rug
- Recent research: WikiSym; predicting editor survival; drug information found lacking; RfAs and trust; Wikipedia's search engine ranking justified
- News and notes: German Wikipedia continues image filter protest
- Discussion report: Proposal to return this section from hiatus is successful
- WikiProject report: 'In touch' with WikiProject Rugby union
- Featured content: The best of the week
- Arbitration report: Abortion case stalls, request for clarification on Δ, discretionary sanctions streamlined
- Technology report: Wikipedia Zero announced; New Orleans successfully hacked
The Signpost: 7 November2011
- Special report: A post-mortem on the Indian Education Program pilot
- Discussion report: Special report on the ArbCom Elections steering RfC
- WikiProject report: Booting up with WikiProject Computer Science
- Featured content: Slow week for Featured content
- Arbitration report: Δ saga returns to arbitration, while the Abortion case stalls for another week
a request
Your comment was indented so it looks like you are replying to my comment, the comment that started this thread? When you left it did it occur to you that it looks like you meant to imply that I was one of those who took one stand WRT allegations against Al Gore, and took the opposite position here.
For there to be hypocrisy participants on Herman Cain or Talk:Herman Cain would have had to have taken opposite positions wrt the allegations against Gore and those against Cain.
Actually, your comment is the first I have heard of these allegations against Gore. If the allegations against Gore were covered in RS, if Gore replied to them, and I had known about them I would have argued for their inclusion.
BLP doesn't say this kind of material can't covered, in a neutral, non-sensational manner -- provided it is backed up by sufficient RS.
If no one here took different sides in the two discussions, there was no hypocrisy. If someone did take opposite sides, they may have had a genuine change of heart over the last year. The discussion last year may have changed their mind.
May I suggest that if you felt challenging hypocrites was appropriate it would be better to have challenged them via their talk pages. Are you going to hold it against anyone who took a stand a year ago, and had a genuine change of heart? Geo Swan (talk) 22:19, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
- Nope, just a general comment on the ways and means of wikipedia consensus building. And if you had never heard of the Gore allegations, then I guess the vocal minority rewrote history successfully.--JOJ Hutton 22:26, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
- Nah. I don't think so. Cain's hush money has made the evening news on the BBC and CBC for night after night. It is an international story. If Gore's story was of comparable impact I am sure I would have heard of it.
- Did Gore pay hush money?
- If you go back to the Al Gore article, and find that vocal minority is still pushing for excision, let me know and I will voice my support for inclusion. Geo Swan (talk) 23:24, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
On this page you agreed to check out myTouch 4G Slide but, you didn't do anything.Greg Heffley 21:35, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
- You hadn't answered me.Greg Heffley 21:12, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
- With all due respect, its not that I was trying to ignore you. Sorry my reply comes so late. As far as the article goes, there's no right or wrong way to format an article. Articles do not need to look the same as others, although some people like to see consistancy throughout. The article appears fine, but could be expanded to include more on sales and reception to the device. Reviews would help as well.--JOJ Hutton 17:06, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
Vandalism
I vandalised your FAQ at the top of this page in this edit. Please don't sue me, it was an accident, I swear! Tovalu (talk) 18:51, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
Flags
| Without standard rules and guidelines,wikipedia would be nothing but anarchy |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
I thought better of you, to be honest. There's a discussion ongoing, in which you have admitted that there's no consensus to remove flags from these article infoboxes. There is no prohibition in the MOS, and you have failed to produce any part of the MOS anywhere that prohibits these flags. Don't start an edit war, for everybody's sake. Bretonbanquet (talk) 14:45, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
|
Broadway Open House
Tape did not exist then. Tape was not used by CBS and NBC until 1967. There are a few kinescopes of "Broadway Open House". However, my point is that one cannot use present tense when talking about a 1950-51 live TV series which does not exist. Two or three representative shows that do exist do not change this fact. Pepso2 (talk) 18:04, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
- That does not and should not change the fact that the show can still be viewed today. The MOS makes no distinction, to my knowledge, between live shows filmed on kinescopes and later shows taped.--JOJ Hutton 18:13, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
- The series cannot be viewed today. It does not exist. Pepso2 (talk) 23:07, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
The Signpost: 14 November 2011
- News and notes: ArbCom nominations open, participation grants finalized, survey results on perceptions on Wikipedia released
- WikiProject report: Having a Conference with WikiProject India
- Arbitration report: Abortion and Betacommand 3 in evidence phase, three case requests outstanding
The Signpost: 21 November 2011
- Discussion report: Much ado about censorship
- WikiProject report: Working on a term paper with WikiProject Academic Journals
- Featured content: The best of the week
- Arbitration report: End in sight for Abortion case, nominations in 2011 elections
- Technology report: Mumbai and Brighton hacked; horizontal lists have got class
Removal of Flag at Conservapedia
| Closing as there shouldn't be anymore to say. Sent other user a barn-star as recognition of their concern and cooperative nature. |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
The flag was before the Alexa figures for the main market which is the united states. If you're goint to remove things like that then please replace at least with the name. Even better talk to whoever controls the bot that sticks in those figures otherwise you'll have a job fixing the icon every couple of months or so. Dmcq (talk) 19:13, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
p.s. I notice a flag at the top of this page. Doesn't seem a very consistent attitude to me. Dmcq (talk) 19:15, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
The bot is User:OKBot Dmcq (talk) 19:23, 23 November 2011 (UTC) I've put a warning at User talk:OsamaK so they'll know about this problem with OKBot. Dmcq (talk) 22:36, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
|
Tom Mix
Yes, I stuck the picture in there when I wrote the article a couple of years or so ago because, even though it was from a much earlier film, it would let people know what Tom Mix looked like since he's being lost in the mists of time. Not improper to remove it, though, of course, and I knew someone would do so eventually. It's a rare picture that can stay up long in Wikipedia. Upsmiler (talk) 06:21, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue LXVIII, October 2011
|
To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. EdwardsBot (talk) 08:19, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
The Signpost: 28 November 2011
- News and notes: Arb's resignation sparks lightning RfC, Fundraiser 2011 off to a strong start, GLAM in Qatar
- In the news: The closed, unfriendly world of Wikipedia, fundraiser fun and games, and chemists vs pornstars
- Recent research: Quantifying quality collaboration patterns, systemic bias, POV pushing, the impact of news events, and editors' reputation
- WikiProject report: The Signpost scoops The Bugle
- Featured content: The best of the week
I have reverted your edit because the consensus is that it is only necessary to identify the type of football where there is possible confusion with American football, etc. As Dean's two match career was all in England there is no confusion. Your apparent logic would require every single article (of which there are tens of thousands) about any player of American Football, "Soccer", Australian Rules football, Gaelic Football and any variety I've forgotten, to have this spelt out in the lead. Can I suggest that rather than play games with the Harold Dean article, you explain your logic at this discussion. Thankyou. --Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 07:12, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Please place {{Talk header}} only where appropriate
Why are you creating pages just to add {{Talk header}}? This notice is posted:
 | This template should be used only when needed. There is no need to add this template to every talk page. Do not create a talk page just to add this template. |
The template's documentation makes the point further by saying:
- Talk pages that attract frequent or perpetual debate, articles often subject to controversy, and/or recent-and-highly-visible topics are usually appropriate for this template. Calm talk pages do not need this template.
- In accordance with Wikipedia:Talk page layout, this template should not be added to otherwise empty talk pages. That changes the "discussion" tab at the top of the page from a "redlink" into a "bluelink", which may mislead people into thinking there is discussion.
There is even a WikiProject that removes {{Talk header}} from all but the most controversial pages. Given the clear language of these guidelines, (and unless I'm missing something), I'd ask you to stop placing this template on talk pages. Senator2029║talk 18:47, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
- The talk headers are informative messages at the top of talk pages, giving users and readers brief guidelines on how to use the talk page. Every talk page is a potential for discussion, not just controversial or frequently debated ones.--JOJ Hutton 18:54, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
- Sure, every talk page has the potential for discussion. However, the guidelines specifically address this, and state, "this template should not be added to otherwise empty talk pages."[2] If you disagree with this, please discuss the issue and obtain consensus for a re-write the of usage guideline. Senator2029║talk 04:39, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
- You have stated twice that In accordance with Wikipedia:Talk page layout, this template should not be added to otherwise empty talk pages. This, in accordance to {{Talk header}}. But Wikipedia:Talk page layout, says no such thing. So its not really in accordance to anything.
- I've been adding these templates for years, and you are the first person who has ever thought it wrong. If I stopped making improvements and changes to Wikipedia every time someone disapproved, I wouldn't be making any changes at all. Honestly, these templates are not disrupting the project as much as you feel they are.--JOJ Hutton 13:25, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
- Sure, every talk page has the potential for discussion. However, the guidelines specifically address this, and state, "this template should not be added to otherwise empty talk pages."[2] If you disagree with this, please discuss the issue and obtain consensus for a re-write the of usage guideline. Senator2029║talk 04:39, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
The Signpost: 05 December 2011
- News and notes: Amsterdam gets the GLAM treatment, fundraising marches on, and a flourish of new admins
- In the news: A Wikistream of real time edits, a call for COI reform, and cracks in the ivory tower of knowledge
- Discussion report: Trial proposed for tool apprenticeship
- WikiProject report: This article is about WikiProject Disambiguation. For other uses...
- Featured content: This week's Signpost is for the birds!
December 2011 Newsletter for WikiProject United States
The December 2011 issue of the WikiProject United States 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.
The Signpost: 12 December 2011
- Opinion essay: Wikipedia in Academe – and vice versa
- News and notes: Research project banner ads run afoul of community
- In the news: Bell Pottinger investigation, Gardner on gender gap, and another plagiarist caught red-handed
- WikiProject report: Spanning Nine Time Zones with WikiProject Russia
- Featured content: Wehwalt gives his fifty cents; spies, ambushes, sieges, and Entombment
England: 17 December 2011
Clearly there is a difference between Jojhutton (US Citizen)and Hayden120 (Australian Citizen) on the one hand; and myself - Synaptic peach (UK Citizen/English born-bred) about the semantics describing the geography at the time referred to in Prehistory. In fact it is common for the term Britain to describe the whole of the British Isles. Moreover the other expressions used (France, Spain) simply did not exist at the time of the Roman invasion (which might be regarded as the end of pre-history in the context of geo-political development of England). If the article had been written using descriptions that might have been extant at that time, reference would have been made to Britannia, Hibernia, Caledonia, Gaul, Hispania and so on. However I didn't author this section and was correcting what seems to be tautology in the usage of modern place-names. "Great Britain" is a place-name that should not be confused with the simple term "Britain". The former is rightly a political geography term that describes certain parts of the British Isles as in "Great Britain and N.Ireland".
I've now rewritten the section to eliminate some of the nonsense and put things in a better perspective. That includes separating stuff about languages from a piece about metallurgy. The original wasn't very well constructed...! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Synaptic peach (talk • contribs) 21:13, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
- Read WP:Consensus. You don't have it.--JOJ Hutton 22:16, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
The Signpost: 19 December 2011
- News and notes: Anti-piracy act has Wikimedians on the defensive, WMF annual report released, and Indic language dynamics
- In the news: To save the wiki: strike first, then makeover?
- Discussion report: Polls, templates, and other December discussions
- WikiProject report: A dalliance with the dismal scientists of WikiProject Economics
- Featured content: Panoramas with Farwestern and a good week for featured content
- Arbitration report: The community elects eight arbitrators
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows – Part 2
I notice that you have recently edited Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows – Part 2 and would like to make you aware that I'm seeking consensus on the article on the talk page . --Mrmatiko (talk) 09:22, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
Inaccurate statement in something you said at WP:ANI
Jojhutton, at ANI, you stated "The only reason I would see for Jayron asking for this ban is to keep PMAnderson from voicing opposing opinions to his/her own." Please revise this statement. I have never been involved in a content discussion with PMA. I have never, as in not even once, been in conflict with him over any such issue. Your statement implies that I am trying to keep him from disagreeing with me in such discussions. Since I have never (as in never meaning not even one time in the history of Wikipedia) been involved in such discussions with him, that is simply not possible. I have no objections to you voting "Oppose" in the discussion. I fully support your right to do so. But you have stated a blatant untruth in your rationale, something which is demonstratedly not true, and I would appreciate if you revised your rationale to remove your statement that implies that I have a vested interest in seeing such a ban enacted on PMAnderson. I do not; since no article or area of Wikipedia I work in has ever overlapped with his work, and we have never had any direct contact except in discussions about his behavior, your speculation as to my motivation isn't possible. My motivation in starting the discussion is to stop disruption to Wikipedia. --Jayron32 20:38, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
- That is why I said, "The only reason I would see for Jayron asking...", instead of saying "The only reason Jayron is asking...". I purposely stated it as my opinion, not as a fact. It's still my opinion and I see nothing in the text or on any message board, that would change my opinion, so I see no reason for revising my opinion at this time. JOJ Hutton 20:53, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
- It's a shame. If you are going to accuse me of impropriety, it would be nice if you backed up those accusations with evidence. If you are going to publicly state that your opinion is that I have behaved improperly, it would be nice if you provided evidence to support that opinion. --Jayron32 01:50, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue LXIX, November 2011
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Ian Rose (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:41, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
The Signpost: 26 December 2011
- Recent research: Psychiatrists: Wikipedia better than Britannica; spell-checking Wikipedia; Wikipedians smart but fun; structured biological data
- News and notes: Fundraiser passes 2010 watermark, brief news
- WikiProject report: The Tree of Life
- Arbitration report: Three open cases, one set for acceptance, arbitrators formally appointed by Jimmy Wales
- Technology report: Wikimedia in Go Daddy boycott, and why you should 'Join the Swarm'
Association football
Hi there. There is no need to remove piping links to 'association football' - i.e. changing from [[association football|football]] to just [[association football]]. This is especially incorrect with players - no player would ever be described as an 'association footballer', they are a 'footballer' (unless they are US/Canadian/Australian, in which case it would be soccer regardless). Cheers, GiantSnowman 15:55, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
- Football has other meanings outside of England. Its too confusing. It needs to be disambiguated from other forms of the sport.--JOJ Hutton 15:56, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
- Are you familiar with WP:ENGVAR? Because in most countries that use British-English, "association football" is rarely, if ever, used. The sport is football and the people who play it are footballers. GiantSnowman 16:02, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
- Thats fine, but the term Football is not owned by association football, but has many meanings outside of the sport. In any country in which each particular incarnation of Football is played, the locals usually just call their sport Football, not by the dismbiguated name. But this being an international encyclopedia, the shorter localized version can be too confusing to many readers.--JOJ Hutton 16:06, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
- You're missing the point. Piping - [[association football|football]] - is not only fine, it's actively encouraged over at WP:FOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 16:16, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
- So you are arguing that the wikiproject made a decision to own the term football? Even the wikiprojects name is not neutral, and appears to claim ownership of a word that has many meanings all over the world. And I fail to see how WP:ENGVAR somehow denotes ownership of the word Football to one particular variety of the game.--JOJ Hutton 16:22, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
- Who's claiming ownership?! I've never said that once, stop being so ridiculous. It's clearly obvious within the context of the articles what sport it refers to. Btw I'm not the only one to disagree with your edits - [3] - and if you want to take this for wider discussion, please feel free. GiantSnowman 16:25, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
- It may be obvious to you, but not to everyone who reads the articles. What part of WP:ENGVAR supports using the term short term Football only, while all other sports have to use the longer disambiguated terms? Since you brought it up?--JOJ Hutton 16:30, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
- The very first example that ENGVAR gives is "soccer vs. football" - I think that's enough to rest my case. GiantSnowman 16:32, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
- Not really,since we are discussing Association Football vs American Football, Australian Rules Football, Canadian Football, ect...--JOJ Hutton 16:34, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
- Uh, no we're not. This is about an article related to association football, and whether it should be called 'association football' or 'football'. GiantSnowman 16:36, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, in order to disambiguate it from other forms of the sport. Don't lose focus. If there were no other sports called Football, we wouldn't even be having this discussion. So why should association football articles use only the term football, while all others have to disambiguate? Why does the wikiproject WP:Football get to use the term football while, for example, the American Football wikiproject Wikipedia:WikiProject American football, have to disambiguate?--JOJ Hutton 16:46, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
- Uh, no we're not. This is about an article related to association football, and whether it should be called 'association football' or 'football'. GiantSnowman 16:36, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
- Not really,since we are discussing Association Football vs American Football, Australian Rules Football, Canadian Football, ect...--JOJ Hutton 16:34, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
- The very first example that ENGVAR gives is "soccer vs. football" - I think that's enough to rest my case. GiantSnowman 16:32, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
- It may be obvious to you, but not to everyone who reads the articles. What part of WP:ENGVAR supports using the term short term Football only, while all other sports have to use the longer disambiguated terms? Since you brought it up?--JOJ Hutton 16:30, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
- Who's claiming ownership?! I've never said that once, stop being so ridiculous. It's clearly obvious within the context of the articles what sport it refers to. Btw I'm not the only one to disagree with your edits - [3] - and if you want to take this for wider discussion, please feel free. GiantSnowman 16:25, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
- So you are arguing that the wikiproject made a decision to own the term football? Even the wikiprojects name is not neutral, and appears to claim ownership of a word that has many meanings all over the world. And I fail to see how WP:ENGVAR somehow denotes ownership of the word Football to one particular variety of the game.--JOJ Hutton 16:22, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
- You're missing the point. Piping - [[association football|football]] - is not only fine, it's actively encouraged over at WP:FOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 16:16, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
- Thats fine, but the term Football is not owned by association football, but has many meanings outside of the sport. In any country in which each particular incarnation of Football is played, the locals usually just call their sport Football, not by the dismbiguated name. But this being an international encyclopedia, the shorter localized version can be too confusing to many readers.--JOJ Hutton 16:06, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
- Are you familiar with WP:ENGVAR? Because in most countries that use British-English, "association football" is rarely, if ever, used. The sport is football and the people who play it are footballers. GiantSnowman 16:02, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
But it's already disambiguated, isn't it - all you are doing is removing the piping, which violated ENGVAR, as (as I have said multiple times), the sport in British-English is never called 'association football'. The sport is not in question here. Did you really look at the article on the Southern Football League and think it referred togridiron?! The other sports don't have to do anything - if you want to edit an article on a NFL player, and put [[American football|football]] then go for it. As for the name of the WikiProject, I suspect it's partly a case of first come, first serve, and partly a case of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. GiantSnowman 16:53, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
- Disambiguation would read Association football, not Football with a pipe link. Yes, one could hover over the link and see what the pipe link really is, unless of course that person is using a mobile device (ie: Smart Phone, iPad), which happens more and more these days. Or they are reading a physical transcript without links, or an off wiki website that is quoting Wikipedia. I understand that personally your first instinct when seeing the word Football is to associate it with Association Football, but many people, outside of Britain, would see Football and think of a completely different sport. Pipe links are fine, but can be way too confusing, especially when the word(s) have so many other meanings. The first mention of the sport should always be a direct link to the sport, while subsequent mentions could easily use the shorter Football. And yes, I originally thought that the Southern Football League was American Football. You can't tell me that American Football is not played in Britain. It really could have been an American Football league. There is nothing in the lead that would have lead me to believe differently. I understand that from your point of view, its simple, but your point of view is not the only one reading the article. Others read these article too. --JOJ Hutton 17:18, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
- My interpretation of WP:DAB seems to support me, but you're more than welcome (as I'm sure you will do) to disagree. No, actually, my first instinct when seeing 'football' is to locate it within its context - so if I saw football on an article about a NFL player, I'd know it wasn't referring to soccerball. But 'football' refers to 'association football' in the VAST majority of the world - it is, after all, the most popular sport in the world, whereas gridiron is pretty much limited to North America. You say that "The first mention of the sport should always be a direct link to the sport" - well it is. If the reader is unsure, they can click on the link and it will take them staright through to the correct article. Your removal of the pipe doesn't affect that. GiantSnowman 17:26, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
- I am glad that your first instinct is to locate the context of the term Football within the article. You are a very rare person indeed, but most people don't have your divine intellect and will not always do as you do. I must admit that I'm just not as smart as you are then. Bravo.
- Not sure what exactly in WP:DAB you are referring to. Its a large guideline, and appears to spend most of the page discussing articles and disambiguation pages. There is a small line about Football, but appears to be in reference to creating articles, not linking to them. Again, I'm not as smart as you, so could you help me out and perhaps explain it a little more?
- And I'm all for certain pipe links, but if I am reading the article straight out, and still cannot determine from the text, which type of football the article is referencing, without needing to click on a link, then perhaps the article has a problem.--JOJ Hutton 17:47, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
- Regarding WP:DAB, in the introduction it says "Making the links for ambiguous terms point to the correct article title", and their example would is [[Mercury (planet)|Mercury]] - yet you would not pipe that, in case someone mistook the planet for the element, for example. Regarding your last point, are you honestly telling me that you couldn't tell that Southern Football League was referring to association football? It's a question I've asked before, and never received and answer... GiantSnowman 17:53, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
- I thought that you may have been referring to the Mercury example. It's fair to assume that you feel this way for all Football articles?
- I thought I had made it fairly obvious that I did think that the article Southern Football League was about American Football. There is nothing in the text that described which type of Football, the league played, unlike the article Premier League, which states it very clearly in the first sentence.--JOJ Hutton 18:05, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, I believe in consistency, as does the community, and community precedent supports me - all the articles named "(footballer)" for association football players, for example. GiantSnowman 18:28, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
- I meant all football articles, not just what you consider football.--JOJ Hutton 18:37, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
- So did I. GiantSnowman 18:47, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
- I meant all football articles, not just what you consider football.--JOJ Hutton 18:37, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, I believe in consistency, as does the community, and community precedent supports me - all the articles named "(footballer)" for association football players, for example. GiantSnowman 18:28, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
- Regarding WP:DAB, in the introduction it says "Making the links for ambiguous terms point to the correct article title", and their example would is [[Mercury (planet)|Mercury]] - yet you would not pipe that, in case someone mistook the planet for the element, for example. Regarding your last point, are you honestly telling me that you couldn't tell that Southern Football League was referring to association football? It's a question I've asked before, and never received and answer... GiantSnowman 17:53, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
- My interpretation of WP:DAB seems to support me, but you're more than welcome (as I'm sure you will do) to disagree. No, actually, my first instinct when seeing 'football' is to locate it within its context - so if I saw football on an article about a NFL player, I'd know it wasn't referring to soccerball. But 'football' refers to 'association football' in the VAST majority of the world - it is, after all, the most popular sport in the world, whereas gridiron is pretty much limited to North America. You say that "The first mention of the sport should always be a direct link to the sport" - well it is. If the reader is unsure, they can click on the link and it will take them staright through to the correct article. Your removal of the pipe doesn't affect that. GiantSnowman 17:26, 30 December 2011 (UTC)