User talk:JHunterJ/Archive 5

Big Brother
Please do not edit Big Brother. ps second life big brother was not a tv show as it was over the internet. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by In23065 (talk • contribs) 18:49, 1 August 2007 (UTC) (UTC)
 * "Please do not edit"? This is Wikipedia.  Please familiarize yourself with the manual of style for disambiguation pages, WP:MOSDAB. -- JHunterJ 19:43, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Bruin
I am just wondering why you removed the picture from the Bruin page. While the page is a disambig, I believe the picture is useful. You can reply here. Thanks. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:09, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, while the primary meaning of "bruin" is indeed in Wiktionary, stating it at the beginning of the Bruin article is useful for readers I think. I put that back. Again, you can reply here if you have comments. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:12, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I removed the picture, as you guessed, because it's a disambiguation page, and a picture of the UCLA Bruin doesn't belong there. Pictures on dabs are useful only when they help readers find the article they sought (like a map indicating where each of two similarly named towns are). The intro definition is OK; those are hit-and-miss for removal when there is no primary -meaning article. -- JHunterJ 10:57, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Right. But the picture illustrates the primary concept, of a "baby bear, when said poetically". While the page is disambig, focusing a bit on the primary concept is good I think. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 15:11, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The picture illustrates a non-primary topic, the UCLA Bruin. If a picture is kept (which I still don't think is optimal), it should simply be a picture of a small, non-institutional bear. But illustrating the topic doesn't aid in disambiguation, and depicting any bear in this non-article dab won't help the reader find the actual article he or she meant to read. -- JHunterJ 15:30, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * But there is no baby bear picture around. Then the UCLA one could be better than nothing I think. (I act on the belief that pictures are good and lighten up the tone of articles, even if when they are not absolutely necessary). Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 02:30, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * And I think that nothing would be better on the disambiguation page, rather than the implication that the UCLA Bruin in the primary topic, since it is depicted. Disambiguation pages aren't articles, by the way. -- JHunterJ 10:57, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, you convinced me. It is a nice picture though. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 15:00, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I can agree with that. I added it to UCLA Bruins instead. Cheers! -- JHunterJ 15:25, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks! That was the right place for it indeed. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 05:03, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Ben (disambiguation)
Comment re this page per Oleg Alexandrov above. Would you perhaps prefer it if every Ben in Scotland were listed individually here? The disambiguation is not from the Gaelic word, but from its many uses in place names. Ben MacDui (Talk) 07:32, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Dabs don't list all articles with the dabbed term; users can use Wikipedia's "Search" button for that. Please see WP:MOSDAB. -- JHunterJ 10:58, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * It's a shade terse for my tastes, but I'm happy enough with the current version. Au revoir. Ben MacDui (Talk) 18:33, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Galago disambig page
But there are other Galagos in the world. Even though that disambig page serves little purpose now, there's a definite possibility we'd have to recreate it down the track if we deleted it, and what harm is caused by the encyclopedia by keeping it? --Stormie 21:25, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Using that logic, the db-disambig template should be deleted. Any disambig that has ever been created might one day have more entries...  Future Wikipedia editors can handle the needs of the future Wikipedia. -- JHunterJ 21:32, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Help please?
Hi, and thanks for welcoming me. I do in fact regard myself as a fairly experienced editor, having done a lot of work without registering.

I feel that terrible liberties are being taken on Political correctness and wonder if, as an experienced editor not particularly connected with this controversial subject, you might take a good look at the recent Talk there. Briefly, I feel that constant reversion is being used to suppress new information, particularly by two editors Cberlet and John Quiggin, and now MastCell who has waded in at the request of John Quiggin and accused me of causing a revert war (as you will see I have only made three reverts in two months and the war is actually theirs against me). I feel strongly that the rules at WP:revert are being flouted, but they trash my additions despite my very careful and extended discussion (with original and reliable citations) on the grounds that they are POV. As you can see there, I have quoted the relevant rules, but they refuse to engage, and treat me in a condescending way. Look carefully, all is not what it might seem, and another (anonymous) editor, who seems to me to be respectful and eloquent, is now hanging back because the page was locked and he was warned, quite unjustifiably in our view. He asked me for help, and I have pushed as far as I feel I want to go. Help us! --Memestream 18:37, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * It looks like you've started down the right path, bringing up the issues on the Talk:Political correctness page. Give that some time for other editors to chime in and see if a consensus can be reached. I have not looked closely enough to see where unwarranted reverts may have been performed, but it looks like the current ado started this weekend.  I've recently adjusted my own attitude to allowing "bad" reverts of my own edits to stand while I discuss on a Talk page (mine, the other editor's, or the article's).  It's been better for my blood pressure anyway. I'll take another look next week and see how things are going. -- JHunterJ 21:50, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Content
I object strongly to the editing of the content disambiguation page. It now provides one possible definition of information where it used to say:

Information and experiences created by individuals, institutions and technology to benefit audiences in contexts that they value

As I mentioned in earlier commentary on this page content is not simply equatable to information - and if you look at the article on information you will see that it is far more narrow than how the publishing and online industry refer to content. Content includes printed materials, art, performances, video, and other experiences that are far more than information. Moreover, content is about the context in which information and experiences appear as much as the information or experience itself. Data sitting in a database may be information, but it's not really content until it's delivered to an audience in a way that has value to it. An old eight-track tape sitting in a box with a player that cannot retrieve its music is just plastic and metal waiting for recycling. Even when content is in a given context it may not have value to a particular audience, in which case it loses its specific value as content. A Martian looking at a speed limit sign may be considering an interesting geometric design but may not comprehend that the design contains information and therefore miss an important aspect of its existence as content. The same sign placed in a modern art museum as a piece of "ironic" art may take on a wholly different meaning as content, even though its meaning as an information device is understood. DNA molecules are just chemical sequences: it's only when a scientist applies tools to that sequence that meaning comes out of those molecules, meaning that may be different to different audiences. The value of content is in the benefit to an audience.

I respectfully suggest that the original definition be returned to the disambiguation page. I understand what you're trying to accomplish with this clean-up, but it's just way too narrow. Jblossom 17:50, 9 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Disambiguation pages are for disambiguating Wikipedia articles. The Wiktionary entry should have the full definition. If there are pages for the other definitions you're referring to that might be desired by readers who search on "Content", then I agree they should be added, but (for example) I doubt that someone looking for the Experience article is going to search for Content. -- JHunterJ 17:56, 9 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The real problem arises in that the term "content" from a publishing and media perspective really deserves an article of its own. The term is not equivalent to information. By using this solely as a disambiguation page and forcing discussions in to subsidiary articles the subject of content is underserved. Jblossom 04:52, 12 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The solution to that problem is to write an article for the term "content", and have that article separate from the disambiguation page. Content (media and publishing), for instance. -- JHunterJ 11:14, 13 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks so much for the suggestion, I wrote an article, as you can see from the above link. I should have done this a long time ago but it took me a while to accept that the disambiguation page should work the way that it was meant to. Hopefully my article is a good start. --67.86.86.228 01:47, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Fictional characters by last name
Should fictional characters with last names that match both a surname page and a disambiguation page go: 1) on the surname page (under the heading Fictional) only, 2) on the disambiguation page only, or 3) on both? -- Shelf Skewed  Talk  03:09, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The surname page certainly, and also the disamiguation page if they are commonly referred to by just their last name (e.g., Giles on Buffy the Vampire Slayer). In that case, a redirect is probably warranted (e.g., Giles (Buffyverse)). -- JHunterJ 10:57, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Check. Good old Giles...-- Shelf Skewed  Talk  16:16, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Disambiguation
Long time no see! Do you think disambiguation pages should be made for: Sakura Haruno (disambiguation), Son Goku (disambiguation), Gohan (disambiguation) and /or  Son Gohan (disambiguation), & Paifu (disambiguation)? If yes, can you establish those pages if you're not too occupied? As it may happen that you choose to create them, notice that Sakura Haruno (disambiguation) is incorrectly redirected to Sakura Haruno. I'd appreciated it so much, but if you rather have me do it instead I'll use the best of my capability. My thanks, Lord Sesshomaru 01:28, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh yes, Son Goku (Dragon Ball) is in the process of being moved to Son Goku, ergo, that's why I ask for a Son Goku (disambiguation). For the rest, there are at most two or three uses of the same name, respectively. Understandable? Lord Sesshomaru 01:34, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * There doesn't appear to be a need for those (disambiguation) pages. If there are two uses of a name, and one is the primary use, the second should simply be a hatnote on the primary. For the eventual placement of Son Goku, its hatnote could become . If there's no primary topic, or if there are more than two topics, then a (disambiguation) page would be needed (although Two other uses sometimes suffices for three topics). The Sakura Haruno (disambiguation) redirect should simply be tagged for deletion (unless there are additional articles to disambiguate beyond Sakura Haruno and Sakura Haruno (Wandaba Style)).  I'll tag it, but I'll wait to see if I've misunderstood the problem first. -- JHunterJ 01:52, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Trust me, those are the only two Sakura Haruno so a speedy would be necessary at this point in time. The only real disam. might be the Gohan one, as it's the only case where I can think of three uses: "Gohan" means dinner (or food?) in Japanese, there's Son Gohan and a Grandpa Son Gohan. What do you think? Lord Sesshomaru 02:08, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Ugh, I forgot that there are at least three (maybe more?) Goku-related pages: Sun Wukong, Goku (DBZ), and Son Goku (Saiyuki). Does that get a Son Goku (disambiguation)? Lord Sesshomaru 02:11, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I created Son Goku (disambiguation); it will need to be edited once Son Goku (Dragon Ball) is moved to Son Goku to reflect to new primary topic in the intro paragraph. I also tagged Sakura Haruno (disambiguation) with db-disambig. I'm not sure about the need for a disambig for Gohan. "Japanese for dinner/food" is suitable for a Wiktionary definition, but not for a Wikipedia article, so it wouldn't need to be disambiguated. Son Gohan should probably have a hatnote pointing to Grandpa Son Gohan if both are commonly referred to as "Gohan" though. -- JHunterJ 11:08, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I added a few more known Goku / Son Goku characters. You might wanna take a look, I took them from this page right before it was redirected. I shall add the Gohan dab you referenced. Thanks! Lord Sesshomaru 17:33, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

FA Review of Charles Ives
Charles Ives has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. Mrprada911 08:44, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Kazuma and Kishimoto
I think these two disambiguations needed correcting, though Kishimoto needs to be created first. Both would fall under surname, I think for Kazuma otherwise because I've seen it as a given name. Can you help me here? There is a long list of Kishimoto named topics, see here. Lord Sesshomaru 17:29, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I touched up Kazuma; Kazuma (given name) could be created to hold the character who have two names, but the list is short enough to leave on the disambig. What help can I be on Kishimoto?  -- JHunterJ 01:01, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, I was hoping you'd create the Kishimoto page. I'm not sure if it is a disam. or surname page. These are the Kishimoto articles, I'd like to know if they can be added. Should Kazuma (given name) be set up like Akira (name)? Lord Sesshomaru 05:45, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The page of a list of the people in that search would be a surname page. If I were creating it, all I'd do is say "Kishimoto is a Japanese family name." then list the name-holders in a section "People with the family name", and end with "  " and "Category:Japanese surnames".  But in this case, I will hope that you create it -- "teach a man to fish" etc. :-) -- JHunterJ 10:01, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * ... and I made some edits to Akira (name). Yes, Kazuma (given name) (or just Kazuma (name)) could be modeled after that one. -- JHunterJ 10:05, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Topic Article Rule

 * continued from User Talk:Chunky Rice/Archive 1

I believe that you're misreading the rule. If you look at the page, WP:SUBCAT, you'll see that the guideline is about when an article should be included both in a category and a subcategory. The topic article rule falls under the heading of when it is appropriate to do so. The topic article rule basically says that when an article is the topic article for a category, both it and the category that is absed on it should be included in a category. -Chunky Rice 22:07, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Alright, I see that on re-reading it. Thanks for the pointers!. -- JHunterJ 10:56, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Romance
Could you take look at the edit history for Romance. Which way would you link the Poe item? On the title, as Bobblehead did, or on the phrase I chose? I had always thought that the primary dabbed term should never be piped, but the section of MOS:DAB on piping seems to allow it--although, again, I thought that the exception was only for secondary links, as in the examples under URL anchor notation. -- Shelf Skewed  Talk  02:59, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The exception for entry words is for simple formatting (the addition of quotation marks or italics to the article title). In this case, I created a redirect Romance (poem) to be used as the primary link. -- JHunterJ 11:09, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I almost did that myself but wasn't quite bold enough--although I did take your similar suggestion for Giles (Buffyverse). Thanks!-- Shelf Skewed  Talk  13:10, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Spam by IP address
After being warned several times, an editor using a certain IP address is continuing to spam other articles. The diff evidence is here:. It is spam because the backpackers hostels are proprietary, for-profit competitors to the not-for-profit American Youth Hostels. Can you please block that address? BTW, I am a member of American Youth Hostels, and a former volunteer of the year, if that matters for COI purposes. I don't have a "mop" yet. Bearian 17:08, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I'm not an administrator, so I can't block anybody. -- JHunterJ 21:19, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Redirects
I was cleaning up The Game and noticed that back in December another editor had created redirects to almost everything called The Game that didn't have a separate article. For instance The Game (London novel) is a redirect to Jack London, where the only mention of The Game is in the list of works. And there are several other examples in the Literature and Music sections. Is this perhaps taking redirect-creation too far? I understand creating Romance (poem) for the Poe work, because it goes to a section of an article where the poem is discussed in some detail. But the London redirect seems to promise further information that isn't there, and so seems less honest than the simple entry, "A novel by Jack London".

And (a different situation here) what about the redirect The Game (wrestler) for the Triple H entry? "The Game" was not a ring name—it was a nickname Triple H gave himself—so that redirect seems misleading also. How would you handle any of these? Should I continue to use those redirects (and re-add the ones that disappeared because other editors have since "fixed" them)? Or should I ignore them and use the other construction ("A song by..." or "A nickname of...")? -- Shelf Skewed  Talk  17:09, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Hmm. As for me, I'd leave them alone.  As long as their articles mention "The Game" somehow, I think they'd be more trouble than they're worth to fix.  That said, we should avoid surprising the reader inappropriately, and The Game (wrestler) might just do that.  But I wouldn't just edit The Game.  The redirect should be removed; as long as it exists, it should be used in the dab.  And removing it would be the result of a WP:RFD. -- JHunterJ 21:32, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * After reading more deeply in the Triple H article, I find that the nickname The Game is much more strongly attached to him (and he to it) than I had thought earlier. I did that additional study after reading all the cautionary statements on the RfD page, and I think now it might be just as well to leave The Game (wrestler) in place. So leave them all alone, I suppose. Thanks for helping me think it through--and learn a little more WP. -- Shelf Skewed  Talk  02:52, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

文
Do you mind if I make some stylistic edits to User:Endroit/文? -- JHunterJ 14:57, 8 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Please go right on ahead, and treat it like a regular dab page in public space (as opposed to user space). Thank you.--Endroit 15:00, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Walker River (Nevada) moved to Walker River
I moved Walker River (Nevada) to Walker River based on the request you made for the move. I noticed that Walker River (Nevada) still has links (see Special:Whatlinkshere/Walker_River_%28Nevada%29), so you might want to bypass the redirects if necessary.

I just got the admin buttons, so this is the first time I've done something like this. Let me know if anything went wacky. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 03:41, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Elkman. Nothing appears to have gone wacky. I believe the links to the (Nevada) version can be left alone, unless/until other edits are needed to the pages, per Redirect. Thanks again. -- JHunterJ 10:31, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Mon (currency)
I closed as keep (perhaps no consensus..whatever) because there was no consensus to do anything else. If you wish to get a merger happening, the talk page is the best place to discuss. AfD is for deletion - that article wasn't going to get deleted. Dihydrogen Monoxide (H2O) 23:28, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Resumed on User talk:Dihydrogen Monoxide
 * If a no consensus verdict will make a difference in merge discussions, you're welcome to edit my rationale (citing this edit). I don't think it will, so I left it. Dihydrogen Monoxide (H2O) 23:36, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Gypsy
"it is doubtful a reader will need to know which album the song is from to determine if it's the sought song"

You know, Wikipedia is about information. Surely you will agree that
 * a) providing information is good, and
 * b) half a line (a grand total of 11 words, 8 words now) of information is not overkill.

Oh well, you didn't delete it again, so fair enough. Cheers. Ingolfson 11:40, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Providing information in articles is good. Dabs aren't articles.  Dabs should provide no more information than is needed to get a reader to the article sought, so that readers looking for other articles can also find them quicker. -- JHunterJ 11:59, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Kishimoto
I finally created the page, it wasn't easy though because there were a plethora of topics relating to the name, from Japanese people, to gangs, and towns. I also was unsure whether it should have been styled like Toriyama; or alphabetically, or with a short sentence added to each example. I could use a hand, if you're willing to help. Thanks. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 17:34, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Another concern, is Japanese family name supposed to be lefted as a redirect on surname/disambig. pages or like this: Japanese family name ? I tried to use as many redirects as I could. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 17:39, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Ordering is best done by likelihood of being what the reader sought, or (if that's not easy to determine), chronologically or alphabetically. As for the redirect vs. piped link, in "body text" like that it doesn't matter. Pipe links are only to be particularly avoided in the main link for an entry. -- JHunterJ 23:00, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, and I removed the redirects in favor of the article titles. When I said "prefer redirects" before, that was in cases where the redirect included the disambiguation page title, but the target page did not. -- JHunterJ 23:10, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid I don't understand. What about Kuwabara? I thought I was following that same format, using possible redirects. I tried to do the same for Buu but, look what happened. Can you explain these two changes J? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 04:05, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

...and did I format Kuwabara correctly? I mean, I removed the periods but it looks strange IMO. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 04:46, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
 * My answer here was based on the changes at Chi-chi, not Kuwabara. I remade your changes to Buu. Kuwabara looks fine; I moved the closing note to a "See also" section. -- JHunterJ 11:38, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking care of that. I just re-made a Hellsing disambiguation page. Now WP:DAB isn't clear on this, but I've seen some titles italicised within some of these pages and I did the same. For example, I did this: Hellsing (manga) . Is that acceptable or should it have been Hellsing manga ? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 06:35, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The way you wrote it is the preferred way. -- JHunterJ 00:56, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Question re a bot you ran on September 25, 2006
On that date, at the Josef Pilsudski article, a space appeared in the domain name used in reference 52, republika.pl, changing it to "republika .pl". The domain was apparently blacklisted at the time, and this insertion may have enabled it to escape Spambot detection. The space seems to have been inserted during the course of your application of a bot changing Brittanica → Britannica. At - it takes a moment, but if you look at the previous version, you'll see that difference in reference #52.

Was the bot hijacked? I looked at the bot's history but didn't see anything matching republika. My concern stems from the appearance of malware on my PC; it's not certain that my recent visit to that link, while reviewing the article, installed it, but republika.pl does appear at a number of malware/Trojan warning sites. If inserting a space in the domain name does allow a blacklisted link to appear, that should be addressed - if you have any ideas about where this should be posted, could you let me know? Sincerely, Novickas 15:09, 20 September 2007 (UTC)


 * It wasn't strictly a bot edit. It was an edit I made with WP:AWB.  I don't recall the link problem, though, or who to alert about it. -- JHunterJ 02:23, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Iron maiden (torture device)
It is very inappropriate to try to get articles moved with db-move ("a page move that is non-controversial or consensual") after RM results to "no move". Experienced editors are expected to understand and accept consensus. Please do not repeat this sort of misuse of a speedy tag on any article. Prolog 23:00, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Please set up whichever db-move is appropriate after getting it redirected to the correct place, to avoid having the base name redirecting to the same name with a superfluous (disambiguation) tag. And please do not repeat this sort of WP:ABF on any user talk pages. -- JHunterJ 02:21, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

adminship
Hello. I was wondering if you'd be willign to consider applying for adminship at WP:RFA. If would make your job with disambiguation pages a lot easier, and I would nominate you if you were willing. Let me know of your decision. Wizardman 17:20, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I am willing to handle the mop if an RFA succeeds, and would welcome a nomination from someone other than me. -- JHunterJ 17:25, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Alrighty then. I'll get the nom ready tonight. Wizardman  17:31, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

 Wizardman would like to nominate you to become an administrator. Please visit Requests for adminship to see what this process entails, and then contact Wizardman to accept or decline the nomination. A page has been created for your nomination at Requests for adminship/. If you accept the nomination, you must formally state and sign your acceptance and answer the questions on that page. Once you have answered the questions, you may post your nomination for discussion, or request that your nominator do so.

Looks good. Feel free to transclude it to the main page whenever you're ready. Or let me know if you wish me to do that. Wizardman 00:34, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

emerson7
Since you've had a run in with emerson7 in the past and have been around Wikipedia longer than I have, I wanted to ask for your advise. emerson7 has been harassing me ever since I made a change (that he didn't like) to Nobel Prize in Chemistry in response to a comment on that article's talk page. A quick look at my talk page, Talk:Nobel Prize in Chemistry, its revision history and emerson7's talk page (if you look through the history, you'll also see my deleted comments and ) show this user's tendency to be uncivil, unwilling to work towards consensus, to refuse to reply when shown wrong, and to revert good faith edits with no good explanation or no explanation at all. Emerson7 has also already been advised that using rollback in content disputes is very strongly frowned upon but continues to do it anyway, such as during the edit war with me on the Nobel Prize in Chemistry article. Do you have any suggestions for what to do besides ignoring emerson7's harassing comments and starting RFCs, which I already do? –panda 06:09, 24 September 2007 (UTC)


 * There are also Wikiquette alerts, Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, and other ways of Resolving disputes. But if you've got multiple editors working to implement a change and one editor working against it, I think you're nearly done already.  There's only so much one editor can do in the face of consensus without drawing a block. -- JHunterJ 11:11, 24 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the tip. I might try Wikiquette alerts since I'm not sure if it's time yet to post to Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. (In this case, there are several editors working towards consensus and one editor, emerson7, who is not.  We haven't reached a consensus yet but we are at least discussing the options and not edit warring in the mean time.)
 * Another question: can past history and comments on talk pages be used as indications of consensus? There are several inactive or infrequently used accounts that have made comments/edits to the involved pages (Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine, Nobel Prize in Chemistry, etc). Since these pages have low modification rates, there doesn't seem to be very many editors actively looking at them at the present moment. (The first RFC got comments from only 3 different editors – emerson7, Itub, and I – despite also being announced and linked to from the four other Nobel Prize pages and being open for 2 weeks.) –panda 15:09, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Past history is an indicator of de facto consensus, but it's pretty trivial once an actual point of contention arises. Comments on talk pages, however, are excellent indicators. -- JHunterJ 00:49, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Koopa
As I said in the summary, the article has been redirected long enough that the need for any specific discussion is long past. I also believe that it was already part of a large merge discussion of many articles of that series (I'll dig up the discussion if you would like). If you want the dab to be correct, move them around yourself or use WP:RM. TTN 15:38, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * It was included along with the various discussions here. They are a series of long discussions going over the need for around twenty articles and lists. I don't believe there is any sort of list of them within that discussion, but that is certainly one of them. TTN 16:01, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Re: Careful copying cited material

 * continued from User talk:Fbv65edel/Archive 10

Hey JHunterJ, so sorry about that -- that must have caused you some frustration looking for those citations. I've lost the habit since July, though, and have been more careful in copying and pasting. Thanks for the heads-up. --Fbv65 e del / ☑t / ☛c || 14:19, 27 September 2007 (UTC)