User talk:JHunterJ/Archive 35

Please see Talk:DRM
Though I reverted your edit at WP:DRM, citing WP:DABPIPE, I wanted to make sure you saw the talk page discussion at Talk:DRM since my edit summary didn't point that out. I didn't want to make it seem as though I was simply reverting without trying to discuss it. Cheers. - Aoidh (talk) 20:45, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Empath
Even though it isn't mentioned at the target article does not mean it isn't used that way. We aren't a dictionary, and we're not supposed to have references on disambiguation pages. But it is clearly used as a synonym for "telempath" in fiction. I fail to see why it should be removed from the disambiguation page, since it is actual usage and one not knowing that the term "empath" used in fiction means what we're covering as "telempath" should not be directed to the correct article that covers the subject. If we add every synonym to target articles, doesn't that turn the target articles into dictionary pages with lists of synonyms? Alternately, I could add references to the disambiguation page instead. -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 04:59, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
 * It's removed from the dab because the dab is there for navigation, and the reader isn't served by navigating them to an article that doesn't mention the topic the reader is seeking. In this case, it would only be necessary to add the information to the article first, and then (assuming it raises no objections for notability, citations, neutrality, etc.) adding it to the disambiguation page. No references can be added to the dab page; all references go with the additions to the target article. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:06, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

New York Theater redirect
Can you help with this? New York Theatre properly names a dab, but New York Theater improperly redirects to Bowery Theatre. Thanks a lot! Vzeebjtf (talk) 12:19, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Try https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=New_York_Theater&action=edit -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:41, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I asked because I'm not sure what I'm allowed to change. Vzeebjtf (talk) 23:05, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Ah, got it. You're allowed to change anything that you believe will improve the encyclopedia -- be bold. You are welcome to discuss changes that you think might be controversial on talk pages first (such as Talk:New York Theater), but it's not required. If someone reverts your bold edit, then definitely discuss it on the talk page. Cheers! -- JHunterJ (talk) 10:59, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Vzeebjtf (talk) 13:40, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

English Rose
There have been some major edits here, at what has been a disambiguation page since 2007. A new article has been written and claimed as the primary topic, which seems very dubious to me. I've discussed it with the editor in question, but I'm not sure where it's going. Any thoughts? I'm writing to you because you had some input at the talk page there years ago. Cheers, Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:52, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
 * History split, moves performed, cut-and-paste move undone. I think things are where they should be now, and if needed discussion can occur as to whether there is a new primary topic for "English Rose" or "English rose". -- JHunterJ (talk) 10:53, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm wanting to assume good faith but am failing to see how the following constitute primary definitions of the term:


 * English Rose (album), an album by Fleetwood Mac
 * The English Roses, a series of children's books by Madonna
 * "English Rose", a song by Motörhead from Motörizer
 * "English Rose", a song by the Jam from All Mod Cons


 * The song by the Jam, wasn't released, none of the songs on the Motorhead album seem to be of individual note and the other two items seem to be at distant secondary at best.
 * I'd also appreciate a some help in understanding how an adjective followed by a noun with no other words added, such as is the case with "English rose", is a phrase.
 * I am struggling to understand. A disambiguation page is meant to be exactly that.  Try going to English rose (phrase), as it has been called, to test the link and see what you get.
 * On my talk page I replied to Bretonbanquet as follows: "The current state of the article is an improvement. It starts with reference to disambiguation and then, on a typical computer screen, it proceeds with information on roses on third and forth lines of text as follows: "The description has a cultural reference to the national flower of England, the rose, and to its long tradition within English symbolism."  The new version of the article then gives reference to: "Tudor rose, Red Rose of Lancaster, White Rose of York and Wars of the Roses" all of which will come on the fifth line of text when viewed on a computer screen.  Now the article gives more direct description to the primary meanings of the phrase so as to relegate usages in the arts that, likely, make reference to primary meanings to second place.  Its a vast improvement."
 * That is still my view. I had also quoted various dictionaries:
 * http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=english%20rose


 * http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/English-rose


 * http://www.macmillandictionary.com/dictionary/british/English-rose


 * http://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/english-rose


 * A consistent definition is given. The word phrase isn't mentioned.  I had produced an edited version of the article that also made clear reference both to physical roses and history.  I'm struggling to understand. Gregkaye (talk) 15:07, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm wanting you to assume good faith too. And I have no opinion on your proposed change to a primary topic. I did fix your cut-and-paste move, though. Next step, use Talk:English Rose, Talk:English rose, and Talk:English rose (phrase) for the WP:RM if you think the phrase should become the primary topic for "English rose" and/or "English Rose", and it may very well be that there's a consensus to do so. -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:30, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 31
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Robert Trundle, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Phenomenology. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:31, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Windy City
Hi JHunterJ - I have undone your edit to Windy City. Your edit formed a double redirect, and given that none of the articles linking to Windy City are about Chicago, your target article was an inappropriate one anyway. Grutness...wha?  06:01, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
 * You undid my WP:MALPLACED fix. "My" target was never mine. I've fixed the WP:MALPLACED again, this time without the double redirect that existed before. Use WP:RM to move the dab to the base name if needed. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:52, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:RM is normally only used for controversial page moves. It is a very complicated and unnecessary process for fixing an uncontroversial and obvious move, and given that the links on this page are to a variety of different subjects...[redacted]... Actually, on second thoughts, it would make more sense to simply reverse the redirect, and have WC(dab) point to WC. Grutness...wha?  23:33, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Nomination of J. Hunter Johnson for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article J. Hunter Johnson is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/J. Hunter Johnson & until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. The Master ---)Vote Saxon(--- 01:39, 10 August 2014 (UTC)


 * For my part, I'd like to clearly communicate to you my position that as wikipedians, you and I have tended to agree on most matters, and our few personal interactions have been cordial and quite productive. I admire your performance as a trusted servant of the community, and am likewise appreciative of your responsible behavior regarding the pagespace of which you are a subject. In making my delete assertion, I have no intention of impugning any of your actions or behaviors. I wish I could locate better independent sourcing, and as a former employee of the adventure gaming industry myself, my access to offline sources is considerable. Best wishes to you and if I can ever be of assistance, know I can be trusted to help. BusterD (talk) 01:27, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
 * And I took it no other way. :-) Cheers! -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:18, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Are you off to GenCon this week? BusterD (talk) 14:47, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Indeed! -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:20, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
 * You should make the trip up to GaryCon this year. It's the best small con in the country, plus there are so many locals. Jolly and his crew are in Waukegan I think, and Forbeck brought his kids up last year, and so many ex-TSRs are in the area. Fun to play old school games with the designers who wrote them. Have a great time in Indy. BusterD (talk) 19:53, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Ping
Hello, there is a question at the above AfD which you may be able to answer. If you have a spare moment, can you stop in and have a look? Thanks! Kindzmarauli (talk) 21:37, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

I already downcased the bustards!
I think you must have put "working" on it just now. I did them a while ago, before I discovered that work page. Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:30, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * They seem to be mostly done. The genus articles aren't, and there was one errant one. I'll list you there as well when I finished the genera, if you like, or you can add your user tag. Cheers! -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:31, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Rfc
Not sure if you are even interested in this, but the following has been proposed on Talk:Sportsperson:
 * Sportsperson → Athlete – The content of sportsperson → athlete; the content at athlete → athlete (disambiguation)

I though you should be made aware of this due to the move you made in 2007 with this edit. Cheers! Location (talk) 06:29, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Numbers on ambig term
Hi JHunterJ, re Defcon (disambiguation), I cleaned it up, and then saw you'd included the items with numbers added to the ambiguous term, and included that (wider scope) in the intro. I made the bold edit to put it back. Do we have any guidance / other examples? Happy to revert to best practice, was considering posting non-number version on the talk, but instead hit save for clarity...
 * What sprang to mind was...
 * Rocky (disambiguation) (but it currently doesn't list the individual films (even the original), so didn't help much). Anyhow, the principle - especially if a series article doesn't exist. I'm assuming they'd all get listed, indented from the original film? or are all but the original film PTM, and go in the see also)? Do you know more dabs with unrelated items with numbers ? Widefox ; talk 00:15, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Because things like DEFCON 1, etc., redirect to DEFCON, that dab page seems like the right place for disambiguating other entries with numbers. Otherwise, we need more redirect hatnotes on DEFCON, or separate dabs for each number. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:28, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes that seems reasonable, I hadn't checked redirects. Thanks, fixed. Seems like a possible guideline to include some indication of the scope of the dab ambiguous terms in the primary topic entry (if convenient) and in the intro (briefly)? Widefox ; talk 09:34, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

September 2014
Hello, I'm Jeffrd10. I wanted to let you know that I undid one of your recent contributions, such as the one you made with [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Millennium_Project&diff=625082777&oldid=623015803 this edit] to Millennium Project, because it didn’t appear constructive to me. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Jeffrd10 (talk) 12:36, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
 * You definitely made a mistake. Be careful with accusations of vandalism. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:39, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Talkback
Jeffrd10 (talk) 12:46, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Catherine of Habsburg
Hi, JHunterJ! Is there a particular reason for insisting on retaining misleading information at Catherine of Habsburg (disambiguation)? Surtsicna (talk) 18:10, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Is there a particular reason for ignoring WP:MALPLACED or WP:CUT? -- JHunterJ (talk) 02:23, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes - I didn't know that there was any valuable page history to be lost by WP:CUT and I couldn't care less about where the disambiguation page is. Do you seriously believe that those policies/guidelines are more important than factual accuracy? Surtsicna (talk) 10:07, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Your "couldn't care less" approach is problematic. Use WP:RM to move the disambiguation page. -- JHunterJ (talk) 10:13, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Why is it problematic? It can be either at "Catherine of Habsburg" or at "Catherine of Austria" as far as I am concerned. It should not mislead readers, however. What's problematic is an administrator showing more concern for trivial technicalities than to accuracy of information. Surtsicna (talk) 10:26, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Cut-n-paste moves are problematic, even if you call them trivial or technicalities. Please use WP:RM to move the dab page. -- JHunterJ (talk) 10:27, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I cannot figure out which of these pages should be moved and where, so filling the template is a bit of a challenge. Would you mind moving the pages yourself? It's non-controversial (and already discussed anyway). Surtsicna (talk) 10:39, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I must say, I agree with Surtsicna here. Once it was agreed that there was no need for the article to exist, the rest just followed. No need to go through procedures just for the sake of wasting people's time, and certainly nothing "problematic" about recreating a two-line disambiguation page under another title rather than formally moving it. Now we're back to where we started and going to waste everyone's time all over again, purely because of bureaucratic pointlessness. W. P. Uzer (talk) 12:30, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
 * It sounds like the move request can be done as a technical move request then. No need to waste everyone's time with cut-and-paste moves or malplaced disambiguation pages. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:33, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
 * What do you mean by "malplaced"? What you call a cut-and-paste move (I don't know if it really was such) didn't waste anyone's time at all, it was your coming along and reverting the actions, agreed by consensus on the talk page, that has caused the present time-wasting. W. P. Uzer (talk) 12:37, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:MALPLACED -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:41, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
 * "A malplaced disambiguation page is one that has no primary topic but is not at the base name, e.g., when Foogle redirects to Foogle (disambiguation)." This is the situation we have NOW, following YOUR reverts. It is YOU who is to be blamed for this "malplacement", not Surtsicna, who had it right. W. P. Uzer (talk) 12:44, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
 * If there is something about these pages that requires admin help, why don't you do it? Is it really easier to keep reverting to a version that nobody agrees to? Surtsicna (talk) 11:26, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
 * If there are standard processes for deleting article content, requesting moves, or requesting technical moves, why don't you just do it? Is it really easier to keep applying the same mistaken arrangements? -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:59, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
 * And, no, I did not leave anything malplaced. Catherine of Habsburg does not redirect to Catherine of Habsburg (disambiguation). -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:01, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I've explained why. I don't understand where each page should redirect anymore, so I cannot fill the template. You apparently do know what's right and you can resolve all of this in a few clicks, much less clicks than it took you to revert. I also don't understand why you are asking me to ask a third party to do what you can do. It's puzzling, to say the least, since you have taken so much interest in this. Surtsicna (talk) 16:46, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
 * And I have no subject expertise to determine it either. So, I would recommend you stop shuffling pages and articles around until there is understanding and consensus about where each page should redirect and be. The AFD and RM processes can help with this, but you have to use them. I've taken "so much" interest in it because your incorrect shuffling brought it up to an admin arena I do watch. -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:10, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
 * There is actually understanding and consensus about exactly what should happen, and it did happen, until you unhappened it. Really, it is you who is in the wrong here, with your meddling pointless rule-enforcement obsession. There is consensus that the article at Catherine of Habsburg should not even exist, so it certainly can't be the primary topic for that phrase, so the disambiguation page certainly is misplaced, by the definition given on the page you yourself linked to. W. P. Uzer (talk) 18:17, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
 * "Consensus" without an actual AFD discussion, yes, I saw that. But you are welcome to make the WP:RM request, either as a technical request or a full discussion. But that hasn't happened either. -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:24, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
 * No, because as we say, it isn't necessary, the consensus result can be put into effect without any such nonsense, as long as you agree to stop poking your nose in and reverting it. If you actually want to help (which may seem a novel idea), and if you have admin powers, then please move Catherine of Habsburg (disambiguation) to Catherine of Austria over the redirect, as was agreed in the first place. Then I think all possible objections about cut-and-pasting will have been answered, and we can do the rest. All right, ignore that, someone's started a move discussion. W. P. Uzer (talk) 18:38, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Proposed change to MOS:DABSYN
I have create an RFC on your behalf regarding your proposed addendum to MOS:DABSYN. Please engage in discussion before updating the guideline again. Augurar (talk) 05:15, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Edit warring on MOS:DABSYN
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.


 * Sorry, I neglected to post this when I created the report. My sincere apologies for the delay. Augurar (talk) 04:22, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Islamic state (disambiguation) and MOSDAB
Hi JHunterJ, there's discussion at Islamic state (disambiguation) that you may be interested in. As the talk is long, specifically Talk:Islamic state (disambiguation) - the use of a redirect with parentheses for an alternative title seems the pertinent point. Widefox ; talk 08:06, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Nirodha (Disambiguation)
Hello I created Nirodha(Disambiguation) page. You may wish to ignore citations of Nirodha by reverting back the redirect in Here. Nirodha may refer to someone's name specially a person in Sri Lanka. And also Nirodha-samāpatti ,yet to be created on Wikipedia. So problem still exists though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kalakannija (talk • contribs) 07:37, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Whenever the name article or Nirodha-samāpatti are created, then the possibility of a disambiguation page can be revisited. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:08, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Robert Barr
I am going to put this page on WP:RM. In the meantime, you haven't actually provided a single decent reason for pointing the page at a fairly obscure American politician.

Are you going to come up with one?-MacRùsgail (talk) 15:20, 15 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm going to continue to provide WP:MALPLACED. Thanks. -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:23, 15 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I didn't ask you to quote Wikipedia rules, I asked you to come up with a decent reason as to why the Libertarian Party candidate is more notable than politicians, writers etc of the same name.--MacRùsgail (talk) 15:30, 15 October 2014 (UTC) p.s. We all know that the Libertarian Party doesn't have a snowball's chance of getting the presidency in the near future since US politics is a duopoly.
 * You don't have to ask me. You just need to stop disrupting Wikipedia contrary to those rules, which you appear to be doing finally with the RM. So we're done, since I have no opinion on the notability of any of the topics. -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:39, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

GWB
Why have you twice removed the link George W. Bush which I added to the GWB page? Are those not common initials, as are the others on that page? Thanks. -- Elendil's Heir (talk) 19:03, 15 October 2014‎ (UTC)
 * Not according to the article George W. Bush, which doesn't mention him being commonly referred to by the initials. Which is what I said in the edit summaries. -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:24, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Ebola (disambiguation)
Hi, I partly reverted your change here pursuant to the discussion on Talk:Ebola (disambiguation). (Most of the changes you made were in line with what all but one editor support, so the overall formatting was just fine, but "Ebola" needed to be changed back to "Ebola virus disease" at least, and other changes had been made during ongoing discussion. Feel free to join in the talk page discussion.) Xqxf (talk) 19:58, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Numbers listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Numbers. Since you had some involvement with the Numbers redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. JohnBlackburne wordsdeeds 10:10, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation of Maudslay
Thanks for your links to pages which I have just again attempted to understand but they are cunnngly made for people wired differently from me. If I search WP for Bell the primary result is "Bell may refer to" and way down the bottom is a link to people with that surname — I was looking for Alexander G Bell.

In my opinion people come first ahead of objects or concepts or whatever. :)) Why does that not happen in disambig pages?

If I search for Edison I get a disambig page beginning "Edison is the last name of Thomas Edison (1847–1931), an American inventor. Edison may also refer to:". ..

If I search for Maudslay I get taken straight to Henry Maudslay's page. Why on earth is That!? I just assumed it was a hangover from soon after the initial act of creation of WP. I thought I fixed it and I am, you tell me, wrong. I do not understand all the distinctions being made here. Please would you fix it and i will try to understand what you have done and why. Thanks and that's a promise, Eddaido (talk) 00:58, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I fixed Edison. Disambiguation page placement is not "awarded" based on the value of the topic. On disambiguation pages and their arrangement:
 * If the primary topic for a title that happens also to be a surname is a person who holds that surname, the disambiguation page ends up looking like Maudslay (disambiguation) (or Churchill (disambiguation)): the primary topic is listed first, and linked with the full name
 * If there's no primary topic, then the name holders are either:
 * Listed on the disambiguation page at the end (after "Other uses" but before "See also") in a "People with the surname" section, or
 * Listed on a separate anthroponymy list article, and that article is linked as an ambiguous topic (the topic being the surname itself, not any one of the name holders)
 * I don't claim that it is an intuitive arrangement, but that's where WP is currently. -- JHunterJ (talk) 00:37, 11 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you! By the way I've been sitting here saying anthroponymy under my breath and, do you know, I like the sound of it. Many thanks, Eddaido (talk) 06:36, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Categorising dab pages clarification
Regarding your edit to Goer and your comment at User talk:DexDor: what does the consensus/policy say? I mean, where is it written down? I've tended to take my lead from MOS:DAB, particularly its section on categorisation, which seems to imply that multiple instances of a type of entry are required in order to add a parameter to disambiguation}, even if it doesn't say so explicitly. Thanks. --VeryCrocker (talk) 06:07, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The category pages for airports and callsigns explicitly say they are used for one or more. And clearly it doesn't apply to the parameters that do not represent types of ambiguous entries, namely: split, chinese, surname, and given name. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:56, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Carmine Miranda
Hie, I am writing to ask for your input about your opinion of this page Carmine Miranda. I am writing to you since you were one of the few who added contributions to it. At present moment it has been nominated for deletion. Articles for deletion/Carmine Miranda I am hoping that if you have time, that you could take a look at its current state and chime in your opinion on whether it should be kept or not. Thank you in advanceLilianarice (talk) 03:57, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Barossa
Hi Can you please explain why you undoing my edits to Barossa? Regards Cowdy001 (talk) 19:42, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Per the edit summary, the other entries aren't ambiguous, but are partial title matches. -- JHunterJ (talk) 21:38, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

comprised of
Village pump (policy) # "comprised of"

Primaler (talk) 22:34, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Black Friday
Hi J, thanks for your edits to Black Friday. List of Black Fridays is a similar page to the disambiguation page and looks like it needs similar improvements. Whizz40 (talk) 21:33, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Yep, the list article is very similar to a disambiguation page. The reason they're separate is because some editors want the list and its variances from dab pages. :-) So it would have to go through AfD or other cleanup stuffs. -- JHunterJ (talk) 21:40, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Dangerous Ground
At a minimum, it might have been good manners to discuss the matter with me first, or even explain yourself first. Sorry, but I'm unimpressed. Pdfpdf (talk) 12:53, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
 * As explained, WP:MALPLACED. And at a minimum, it might have been good manners to discuss on the page's talk page before moving it. Sorry, but you don't have to be impressed. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:09, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Hmmm. And you don't have to be rude or arrogant, either. You  could  WP:AGF and be polite ... (Ho hum.) Pdfpdf (talk) 10:45, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
 * You shouldn't have started this conversation so rudely or arrogantly. Please do WP:AGF next time. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:59, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Interesting. Are you busy "point-scoring", or are you trying to communicate? Pdfpdf (talk) 14:39, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
 * If the latter, I didn't think my initial post was either rude or arrogant - I thought it was restrained and polite in response to your heavy handed and non-consultative reversion and its associated over-generalized and largely irrelevant categorization of my changes as "WP:MALPLACED". There was (and is) nothing "WP:MALPLACED" about my changes, and, at a minimum, it might be WP:CIVIL of you to explain yourself rather than arrogantly dismissing me with a template. Pdfpdf (talk) 14:39, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I know you didn't think your initial post rude or arrogant, but it was. I hoped you would notice subsequently, since my response parallels it and you think it rude and arrogant. And yes, I am often dismissive (but not arrogantly so) of rude and arrogant comments on my Talk page. This was your change that resulted in WP:MALPLACED. Yes, please replace your arrogance with WP:CIVILity. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:47, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I see. So you are more interested in "point-scoring" than in trying to communicate. (How sad.)  Pdfpdf (talk) 10:19, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure why you're still here, unless it has to do with whatever point scoring you're so worried about. You clearly aren't here for two-way communication, only to lecture me. Please move along. -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:44, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Michel Menard move
Thanks for making the moves. I thought I had fixed the problem, but the link to WP:MALPLACED made it clear that there is a better method for naming disambiguation pages.Oldsanfelipe (talk) 18:41, 12 December 2014 (UTC)oldsanfelipe
 * You're welcome! -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:44, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Oropesa
I started a cleanup discussion at Talk:Oropesa, if you'd care to give your input. Hoof Hearted (talk) 17:00, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Analog
Hi. I reverted most of your edits to Analog. Many of the items you removed are not mere partial title matches, but rather are things that, in the appropriate context, are simply called "analogs". They are, therefore, ambiguous and need to be included. Note also that "analog" is also an adjective. We have discussed this issue before.--Srleffler (talk) 02:33, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

"Crutchfield" Redirection
Hello. I see you changed the redirection for "Crutchfield" back to "Crutchfield Corporation", rather than the disambiguation page, and I think I understand why you did that. My reason for changing the redirection page (as well as for moving "Crutchfield Corporation" away from "Crutchfield" in the first place) is that the principle entity called "Crutchfield" is a family of human beings, not a business corporation (whose legal name is "Crutchfield Corporation", not "Crutchfield", anyway). Would it be appropriate to move "Crutchfield (surname)" to "Crutchfield", with a hatnote for people who want the corporation? Then there would be no need for a redirect at all. I'm inclined to do that, but don't want to pick a fight with you, or to do things the wrong way. J. D. Crutchfield &#124; Talk 16:42, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The legal name of the corporation is no impediment to the corporation being the primary topic for "Crutchfield". But any WP:RM of any of the possible candidates to be the new primary topic will be fine. If you would like to propose an move of the surname page to the base name, and that discussion results in consensus to do so, there's no fight from me. Cheers! -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:57, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the cordial reply. I think that, rather than adding to the backlog on the WP:RM page, I'm going to be bold and move the surname page to the base name.  Nobody objected when I moved the corporation page from the base name to Crutchfield Corporation, so I don't expect this move to be controversial. If somebody reverts it, or otherwise objects, I'll request a move the other way. Would you object to my doing that? J. D. Crutchfield &#124; Talk 21:24, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Again, moving the corp page to a more formal name doesn't have any overlap with what the primary topic for "Crutchfield" is. The previous consensus (evidenced by the article arrangement and the existing dab page) is that the primary topic for "Crutchfield" was the corporation. And it will take an admin bit to move either the dab or the surname list to the base name. So I continue to recommend WP:RM, even if backlogged. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:19, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks for the guidance. Merry Christmas! J. D. Crutchfield &#124; Talk 15:27, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!


BOZ (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding to their talk page with a friendly message. I'm wishing you a Merry Christmas, because that is what I celebrate. If you don't like Christmas or just don't celebrate it in any of its forms, then please accept a generic "Happy Holidays". If you celebrate no holidays at this time of year, then hopefully you will be satisfied with an even more generic "Season's Greetings". :)
 * Thanks, BOZ! Merry Christmas to you too! -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:17, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Season's Greetings!
Wishing you and yours a (belated) Merry Christmas, and a Happy New Year. Pdfpdf (talk) 11:38, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Merry Christmas! -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:14, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

To be decided with John Walsh, Jr.
Hello my good sir. I notice on history pages you work on dab and name pages much of your time, so I am uncertain on the creation of this link. Should it redirect to John Walsh (television host), or is it an article of its own right? At the time being, there are two wiki articles on a John Walsh (the most famous is the presenter of "America's Most Wanted"), but there an obscure curator also born John Walsh, Jr.. Do what you believe is best, you have my blessings. RoaringFlamer41 — Preceding undated comment added 15:32, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Create the redirect to John Walsh (television host). -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:13, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Originally, I was going to move the aforementioned link to John Walsh, Jr., but then I thought to myself if this was against some policy. Fellow editor, I could use your further advice on this. RoaringFlamer41 — Preceding undated comment added 21:28, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

answer my question now please — Preceding unsigned comment added by RoaringFlamer41 (talk • contribs) 03:56, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Awfully demanding, aren't you? The answer from 18:13, 26 December 2014 stands. -- JHunterJ (talk) 04:18, 2 January 2015 (UTC)