User talk:JHunterJ/Archive 1

Autobiographical articles
You may want to check out Wikipedia's guidelines on autobiography. Generally, this is frowned upon. Now that it's there, you might as well leave it, but I suggest editing the article further only if another editor introduces an inacuracy. Good luck, and happy editing! -Harmil 00:05, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Your edit at New York Euphoria
What was your source for the player numbers you added? Greetings Weapon X (de) 16:17, 16 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Hallo, Weapon X (de)! I got the player numbers from the players directly in e-mail, from online images, or by the process of elimination. I might be able to provide more precision from another computer, if it would help. Auf wiederchatten! User:JHunterJ 17:29, 16 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks, that's satisfies me. Just wanted to get sure... :)
 * So you are in contact with some of the players... that's cool!
 * Maybe you can also help sorting out the numbers of LA Temptation for LB III, also one player entry is too much (maybe Jerilee Villanueva and Jerilee Woodford are one and the same person ???).
 * Weapon X (de) 13:40, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Redirects?
JA: Maybe I just don't get what it's about yet, but as far as I can tell I seem to be getting exactly contradictory advice from different people on this issue. Jon Awbrey 20:24, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Blade Runner and Soldier
Why remove the "Followed By: Soldier" datum from Blade Runner? JHunterJ 15:56, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Soldier is not a follow up movie to Blade Runner. —Asatruer 15:57, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 * It's not a sequel, but it is a following, unofficial sidequel, according to the article. So it does follow BR.  . —JHunterJ 16:04, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Miyamoto Musashi
Hi JHunterJ, Please note that both dates given for Miyamoto Musashi are death dates. May 19 (or as I wrote the 19th day of the fifth month) is his death date by the traditional calendar and June 13 is his death date according to the Julian Gregorian calendar. His year and date of birth are unknown. So I ask you to revert to the version as I entered it. As I noted in the edit summary, the information came from the Japanese Wikipedia, which you can check for confirmation. Thanks Fg2 15:43, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi again. Please note that his date of death is known. It is a single date, not a range of dates. Thus, the "c." (the abbreviation of circa, meaning "about") is inappropriate for his date of death. The date of death according to the Julian Gregorian calendar is June 13. This is the very same day as the nineteenth day of the fifth month of that year. It is not a different day, nor does it indicate a range of dates. In contrast, his year and date of birth are unknown. He was born in or near the year 1584. The function of the "c." is to indicate that he was born in or near the year 1584. The "c." must precede the approximate date. That is why I wrote "Born c. 1584 – died on 19th day of 5th month (June 13 in Western calendar), 1645." Again, the information comes from the Japanese Wikipedia. If you have more reliable information, I'd be happy to hear about it. Fg2 16:02, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


 * (JHJ)
 * There's a 60-year span of possible death dates? I undid my mistaken fix of marking one of the possible death dates as a birth date, but I still left out the longer written-out dates. WP:MOSDATE indicates that the Gregorian (or Julian, or both) should be used, so perhaps the May 19th date should be removed as well, to be kept in the body only, or they should be indicated simply as Japanese calendar" and "Julian (or Gregorian) calendar".  So perhaps it could be died May 19  (Julian calendar: June 13) , 1584 or 1645) -- or Gregorian calendar if that's the one the June 13 comes from .  The dates in the intro should be kept as terse as possible, I think. -- JHunterJ 16:04, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * (Fg2)
 * No, the date and year of death are well known. The 1584 figure is not a possible year of death; it's a possible year of birth. As I wrote, "Born c. 1584 – died on 19th day of 5th month (June 13 in Western calendar), 1645" Fg2 16:11, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * OK, I think we're there. I was completely backward about Julian calendar -- should have said Gregorian. The Japanese calendar is different from both. I've switched the dates in your format and think we've now got it right! Please check and let me know if there's a problem... it's entirely possible that I've gotten it wrong again! I've crossed out my Julians above and put Gregorians in. Sorry for confusing you on that point! Fg2 16:19, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Talk page indent style
Off topic follow up to the discussion on the Blade Runner discussion page. You are correct that the talk style guide does say that other forms of indentation are just as acceptable. I find that for ease of readability on a long discussion, the suggested fixed indent method is far preferable to that of the threaded indent system. Example. I find the second threaded option, and how the indent on the left just gets wider and wider, more difficult to read, especially if it went much longer than that. In the end product, it is more up to the personal taste of the individuals involved than anything else, so is mostly irrelevant. —Asatruer 19:52, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the Fixup
Thanks for the fixup on the Internet Movie Database article... the links were not removed deliberately. I guess I'll have to avoid editing Unicode-laden articles. :-( AlexDW 16:56, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I assumed it was a software problem, no worries. Check out Enabling East Asian characters if you think you might need to work with Unicode later. -- JHunterJ 17:24, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Noncontemporaneously
Yeah, I know, I know. It's still an awesome word though. ;) ~CS 21:57, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Kill Doctor Lucky
Liked your work there. Nice one. Not sure about changing "whereas" to "where"... it's not brilliant English and it's ambiguous because that part of the article discusses geographical locations! If you don't like "whereas" (do you perceive it as archaic?) one of us could find another to make the point? --Dweller 13:06, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't like "whereas" because it seems wrong (not archaic) to my inner monologue because of the double conjunction. Wiktionary says:
 * whereas: 1. but in contrast; while on the contrary 2. it being the case that
 * and I don't think "but whereas A does B, X does Y" flows. If "where" loses clarity because other parts use geography, maybe "but Cluedo begins... whereas [or "while"] KDL ends....".  Probably should be broken into two sentences:
 * Both games are set in a sprawling mansion full of colorfully named rooms and a variety of dangerous weapons and deal with the murder of the mansion's owner. Cluedo begins after the murder has been committed, and players compete to solve it, but Kill Doctor Lucky ends when the murder is committed, and players compete to commit it.
 * to get rid of some of the conjunctions anyway. -- JHunterJ 13:18, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Much better! --Dweller 13:23, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Angelina Jolie
Why remove the external link to Angelina Jolie's tattoos? I find it to be an interesting website that colourfully illustrates her tattoos (a topic of much discussion on the Angelina Jolie page). --Gaginang 12:36, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Because Wikipedia is not a web directory, and external links need to be more than just picture sites. I did chop based on its description as a picture site; there are too many Jolie picture sites to be added. If this one is more useful (in a Wikipedia sense), then I'll bow to the decision of the Talk page. :-) -- JHunterJ 12:44, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the prompt and honest reply. No problem, I do understand that there are too many Jolie picture sites out there. However, in a general sense, I was unaware that Wikipedia did not allow "just picture sites", I thought they were okay? Perhaps you can point me to a reference page where this is stated, and I can change my ways... Cheers mate!--Gaginang 04:14, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't have a reference saying "no just-picture sites", but they don't meet the criteria for what should be linked (external links) -- collections of pictures tend not be be external "articles". Again IMO. -- JHunterJ 10:53, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

User:67.165.181.119
Hi. I didn't realise that the user made no further edits after you placed the warning. Even with that, I think that based on their edits, was a good idea. PS: You may like to check out User:Voice of All/RC/monobook.js to add to your monobook.js file. It adds a whole bunch of nifty vandalism-fighting features! &mdash; getcrunk   what?!  21:27, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Spam links from 64.123.189.48
Thanks for the good work hunting down and reverting the spam links from 64.123.189.48. Those showed up on a couple of pages on my watchlist; by the time I checked the user's contribs, you had reverted all of them. I just wanted to let you know your work in keeping Wikipedia clean is appreciated. --JFreeman 03:00, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I've "trailed" people like that many times. It's nice to know I'm ahead of the curve every now and then. :-)  Thanks for the note! -- JHunterJ 10:57, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Kurt Leyman
Hi, after more than 40,000 edits here, I know all about good faith and about Kurt Leyman too. And I know him for an inveterate troll with vandalistic proclivities. His good faith has been assumed by me and others way too long. Cheers, Ghirla  -трёп-  15:30, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks!
I just want to say thanks for the advice! I was always wondering what edit summary meant. (Please reply on my discussion page). MCRGIRL 21:10, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Gargoyles (TV series)
Apoligies, I didn't really mean "cite." What I meant was that a vast amount of the information on the page originated at that link verifiable content, and that I believed it was very valuable as an External Link. I'd consider it a worthy External Link even if it was referenced several times in the manner you suggest.......it's a primary source (direct from the creator) and practically an encyclopedia on the topic itself.

I'd be interested to find out why Ask Greg wouldn't constitute a good external link (forgive me, still kind of a newbie). To me, it seems like a phenomenal source of unique and firsthand information for anyone looking for more on the topic. skeeJay 00:29, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


 * WP:EL -- external links are good for content that can't be included in the article; references are the place for acknowledging the source of information that is included in the article. And there's no real benefit in including it in both places. -- JHunterJ 02:17, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree that there's no need for the link to be in two places. Personally, I think it made more sense as an external link and than a reference -- the vast majority of information at Ask Greg is not included in this article -- but I'll defer to you on this. skeeJay 21:20, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Question
Hi, I just wanted to check in and get your opinion, because people seem to disagree on what I should be doing. I understand now that putting stuff up top isn't acceptable, and I apologize for that. Will the Edit Summary suffice? Yrymar 22:09, 2 August 2006 (UTC)yrymar
 * It won't suffice to keep an external link that the editorial consensus is against, no; the edit summaries just help other editors follow what's going on. If adding the Maxim links to an existing Trivia section is also met with resistance, you might want to try creating a new article, List of people featured on Maxim Online or something like that, with a single external link to the root of that site. I don't guarantee that that will avoid all resistance though. Good luck! -- JHunterJ 15:00, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Schilling edits
Nice work on the cleanup of my additions to Curt Schilling. :-)Michael Dorosh 18:17, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Um, my pleasure -- I did so very little. Thanks for making the additions.  That's the harder part! -- JHunterJ 18:24, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Beyonce
I added Entertainers of Creole decent back to Beyonce Knowles...because she is of Creole Decent that's what the whole basis of "House of Deron" is about...any questions contact me. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Baltimorecreole (talk • contribs) 20:36, August 21, 2006 (UTC).
 * (Responded on User talk:Baltimorecreole) -- JHunterJ 12:39, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Surnames
Please stop it with the proposed deletions of pages by surname, and the cuts of surnames from other pages. If the manual page on dab pages is being in read in such a way as to suggest that, then that is over-interpretation. I have long argued that surnames are a special case: navigation of the site by surname is a clear plus. I believe that is generally accepted. Such edits as you are carryoing out, and propose, are negative for the project as a whole. Since the MOS page is in no sense mandatory, but a self-described guideline, please stop and consider what the letter and the spirit have to do with each other, in this case.

Further, if you claim that Ansel Adams, for example, is rarely referred to by surname, how can you possibly justify that? -- Charles Matthews 15:43, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Can you find a citation for Ansel Adams that does not call him "Ansel Adams"? That's how you know. To navigate the site by surname, you should use List of people by name. -- JHunterJ 15:48, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Thankyou for Welcoming me
First of all thanks for the welcome message. But I am a bit confused, I mean I have been editing pages since Jan 26th 2006, and then all of a sudden I see your welcome message. If I have made any mistakes while editing let me know. Or is it just a usual trend to greet new members after after they had made certain number of edit :). Anyhow thanks for the welcome message. yashkochar 20:26, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Responses on my talk
Just want to rule out a misunderstanding: i wasn't sure whether you've missed my 2 responses, on my talk page, to your message there, or choose not to comment further. Thanks. --Jerzy•t 04:30, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

LSJ
Hi thanks for your efforts. But a page itself shouldn't really be called dismbiguation. Imagine you are a searcher, you aren't going to type LSJ (disambiguation) are you? Page moved to just LSJ -are under category disambig Ernst Stavro Blofeld 15:46, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I disagree. Many pages are named with "(disambiguation)" when one usage is clearly more prevalently used than the others, and the basename page will link back to the (disambiguation) page.  There's even a template to facilitate it: . I've placed a  under the Speedy. -- JHunterJ 15:51, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah sorry my mistake but you made the mistake of not redirecting from LSJ. Ernst Stavro Blofeld 18:05, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * You lost me here. LSJ was already a redirect before you overwrote it. -- JHunterJ 18:24, 29 August 2006 (UTC)