User talk:Jojhutton/Archive 7

The information that Janine moves to her mother's after Zoe's death was totally irrelevant and only acted as a major spoiler. Just as noting that Frank kills Zoe off. A cast and character section shouldn't contain such a major spoiler. I went there to find out more about the actress portraying Zoe after watching four episodes of the show, but I feel like I could just as wel quit watching now.

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect IPhone 6. Since you had some involvement with the IPhone 6 redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. CloudComputation ^{Talk freely}
_CloudTracker 04:55, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect IPhone 6C. Since you had some involvement with the IPhone 6C redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. - TheChampionMan1234 04:57, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello Jojhutton. Since you were the one who first proposed using Calhoun's vice-presidential portrait in the infobox on his article, I thought you'd be interested in knowing that somebody has replaced it with a Brady photograph (1849, I think), contending that photographs are "more accurate" than paintings, and that they "take precedence" over paintings. See Talk:John_C._Calhoun#Lead_image. Interestingly, the same person seems to have lost the same argument in connection with pictures of Andrew Jackson. (See link on Calhoun Talk page.) I don't have the energy to wage a campaign in defense of the painting, but perhaps you have. ;0) J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 15:14, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

I saw you tried to place a requested move on iPhone 6 but that the subst wasn't working for you. You had two problems with the wikitext. First since the reason you provided included an equal sign you needed to add reason= in front of that part. The second was that you had an extra open bracket at the start of one your external links( the one to touch.latimes.com ). So the fixed mark up would be something like:

{{subst:Requested move|iPhone 6 and iPhone 6 Plus|reason=Per reliable sources since this single article covers two separate devices, but only one of the devices is mentioned in the title. Sources include, but are not limited to: [http://9to5mac.com/2014/09/22/apple-iphone-6-sales/ From 9to5 Mac], [http://news.yahoo.com/single-most-important-trick-every-iphone-6-6-135527244.html;_ylt=AwrTWf0ghyBUYHYA2SbQtDMD From Yahoo], [http://www.cnn.com/2014/09/16/tech/mobile/new-ios-8-features/index.html?iref=allsearch From CNN], [http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/23/technology/apple-sells-10-million-new-iphones-in-first-weekend.html?module=Search&mabReward=relbias%3As%2C%7B%222%22%3A%22RI%3A13%22%7D&_r=0 The New York Times], [http://touch.latimes.com/#section/1780/article/p2p-81447203/ The LA Times], [http://blogs.wsj.com/personal-technology/2014/09/19/teardowns-of-iphone-6-and-iphone-6-plus-reveal-big-battery-difference/?KEYWORDS=iPhone+6+Plus The Wall Street Journal], [http://www.macworld.com/article/2686209/record-broken-iphone-6-iphone-6-plus-sales-top-10-million-in-opening-weekend.html MacWorld], [http://www.mercurynews.com/Business/Technology/ci_26582759/Apple:-Record-10-million-iPhones-sold-over-weekend San Jose Mercury News via The associated Press]. The ideal thing to do would be to have separate articles for each device, but that logic was rejected. So we need to do the next best thing and include the iPhone 6 Plus in the title of the article, per reliable sources.}}

Not sure if their would be much support at this point. Also note that if the article grows long enough and there is enough difference in coverage of the two variations of the iPhone 6 it is possible in the future that the article might get split again, though it is probably too soon to consider that. As an aside "iPhone 6 and iPhone 6 Plus" sounds a bit wordy, something like the "iPhone 6 family" or "iPhone 6 series" might work better; though I personally think that just using "iPhone 6" is probably good enough for a title. Anyways hope this helps. PaleAqua (talk) 00:09, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Greetings from WikiProject Military history! As a member of the project, you are invited to take part in our annual project coordinator election, which will determine our coordinators for the next twelve months. If you wish to cast a vote, please do so on the election page by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September! Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 22:06, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Template:Mickey Mouse cartoons and featurettes has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Pigby (talk) 20:42, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello. I notice that after several months you have made no attempt to reorganize List of The Simpsons cast members in line with, what you have stated as your interpretation of, policy. You removed Marcia Wallace from the former cast members section, and renamed the section 'other cast members' rendering the article totally inconsistent and nonsensical. Do you plan on fixing this? Gran² 14:47, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you find 'inconsistent and nonsensical' about it. There are the "main" cast members, and then there are the "recurring or "other" cast members." This is very consistent with MOS:TV and the idea that article should reflect the entire history of the show as far as listing the cast and not just who the current cast members are. If you have an issue with this guideline, I suggest you take it up at the guidelines talk page.--JOJ ^Hutton 16:11, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

The former 'former cast members' was for people who no longer work on the show who had previously been part of the recurring cast. That they are now in a separate section makes no sense. Gran² 17:18, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

The Military history Wikiproject has opened nominations for the Military historian of the year and Military history newcomer of the year. Nominations will be accepted until 13 December at 23:59 GMT, with voting to begin at 0:00 GMT 14 December. The voting will conclude on 21 December. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:35, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

The Military history Wikiproject has opened nominations for the Military historian of the year and Military history newcomer of the year. Nominations will be accepted until 13 December at 23:59 GMT, with voting to begin at 0:00 GMT 14 December. The voting will conclude on 21 December. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:41, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

This message was accidentally sent using an incorrect mailing list, therefore this message is being resent using the correct list. As a result, some users may get this message twice; if so please discard. We apologize for the inconvenience.

Nominations for the military historian of the year and military newcomer of the year have now closed, and voting for the candidates has officially opened. All project members are invited to cast there votes for the Military historian and Military newcomer of the year candidates before the elections close at 23:59 December 21st. For the coordinators, TomStar81

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:33, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Don't worry about the Undoing. I have no issue with the revision I'm just asking under what MOS or Other policy you did the revision under. Thanks! TheGRVOfLightning (talk) 02:27, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the link to the MOS. I shall not undo the edit knowing the release section of MOS:FILM. Thanks again! TheGRVOfLightning (talk) 02:36, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Love Wrecked, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jonathan Bennett. 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) 09:00, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

I note your alterations to the dates quoted in the article on the Siege of Port Hudson. Personally, I agree with you that 'May 19th 1863' or 'May 19 1863' is a better designation than '19 May 1863'. But I think you'll find that the Wiki guidelines officially favour the latter. Valetude (talk) 00:24, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Actually you should read MOS:DATETIES (formerly STRONGNAT) which in this case favors MDY over DMY. The 19th is never okay, also per the guidelines. I don't know where you thought that DMY was officially favored by the wiki guidelines. Could you do me a favor and point that out for me?--JOJ ^Hutton 01:03, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

I think I assumed this, because so many dates I've quoted have been re-edited in that style, so I assumed they were changed by Wiki/God. Valetude (talk) 01:21, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Understood. But that's why I changed the date format. MDY was the proper format for that article. JOJ ^Hutton 01:37, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Meetup/San Diego#April 2015. Thanks. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 06:29, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi Jojhutton, the reason I have changed the link from "The Adventures of Tintin (film)" to "The Adventures of Tintin: The Secret of the Unicorn" is that I am moving the article to that name to avoid the inevitable problems with ambiguity when the second Tintin film comes out later this year. Please see Talk:The Adventures of Tintin (film)#Propose article renamed to The Adventures of Tintin: The Secret of the Unicorn. It's not American English vs. British English issue, although it's true that The Adventures of Tintin is a European comic. Now that you have this information, I hope you are okay with this. Prhartcom (talk) 03:38, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

There are a couple problems with this. One is that there are no other current articles that the current article can be confused with. If and when another article is created, then I am sure that that article will have its own title. Two, is that articles need to retain their current titles unless there is consensus to move the article. The third reason is that even if the article title is changed, articles that are about American people or subjects always use the American title, especially when there are different titles in other countries. In this case, the title of the film is "The Adventures of Tin Tin".--JOJ ^Hutton 04:07, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Jojhutton, this is uncontroversial. The other articles that the current article can be confused with are imminent; the film title will be released soon and the producer has said the film will be in theatres this year. Yes, the second Tintin film will have it's own title; it will be named as the first one was named, for example The Adventures of Tintin: Prisoners of the Sun (and the third film in the planned trilogy will be titled similarly). The first film is already named The Adventures of Tintin: The Secret of the Unicorn everywhere except for our country of USA. I have given editors advanced warning of this article move on the article talk page and it has been given support. I have made the change that you found to all articles linking to the article page. I have requested the article move. As for your last point, I see the banner prominently displayed on your user page so I can guess your motivation to prefer things to be American, but I'm afraid it sounds like you are unfamiliar with Tintin. The character is anything but American; he is the most famous European comic character of the twentieth century. Please stop your disruptive reverts. Prhartcom (talk) 04:35, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Sorry but this is controversial. You want to change an article title from one national title to another. Article titles need to retain their current title unless there is consensus to change them. The only way to achieve that consensus would be through a Move Request. Even if the article title is changed, articles about American people and subjects always use the local title. This is a long standing practice supported by WP:TIES.JOJ ^Hutton 04:43, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with American people and their subjects. As I said, Tintin is European, I don't know why you keep insisting this anything to do with Americans. Based on the banner you display that I already mentioned, I do believe you are taking this personally. This is solely about preparing for three articles of three movies titled The Adventures of Tintin: [Insert title here], that's all. I have support for my action at the article Talk page. Please stop your disruptive reverts. Prhartcom (talk) 05:16, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

You seem to be trying to revert my changes again while an active discussion is taking place. Please stop your disruptive reverts. Prhartcom (talk) 22:19, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Its a US Film. You are preemptively changing the titles across multiple articles without consensus. Any more edit warring and misuse of your tools will result in san ANI discussion.--JOJ ^Hutton 22:22, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Jojhutton, I understand that is your position. I have not changed any titles since you first alerted me of your objection. I immediately took the matter to the Talk pages and the matter is actively under discussion. During that time, we wait. Prhartcom (talk) 22:26, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Per WP:BRD we discuss, but the articles should be reverted back to their original format. You literally reverted my edits and use your Rollback tool to edit war. I am very close to moving this discussion to ANI based on your misuse of your Rollback tools, edit warring, obvious canvassing, and possible Meatpuppery.--JOJ ^Hutton 22:31, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

May I ask you for calm? I would like to extend an olive branch, if I may. I'd like to simply reach a consensus. I'm happy to answer any question you have for me. I'll take any suggestion you may have. Prhartcom (talk) 23:40, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

May I ask you where was the calm last night when you mass reverted several edits in obvious violation of WP:BRD and WP:ROLLBACK. And you literally Taunted me with This edit summery. You seem to be under the impression that the edits you made must remain that way until the discussion is over. That is not true. The edits you made last night with your misuse of RollBack were in direct violation of the collaborative spirit of Wikipedias Dispute Resolution Process. I have no doubt that you had good intentions at first, but you need to realize that we at the wikiproject Film have had these types of discussions before. The general consensus has concluded that the production companies are the key factor in determining the nationality of a film, and not the subject matter in general. That includes date formats. TinTin isn't even British so I have no idea why you feel so convinced that it must use the British title over the long standing American one.

I will say that if and when an article is created for a sequel, the article title will reflect what the producers have decided what the title will be in their country. There is no reason to believe that the current title, The Adventures of Tintin (film) will be confusing at all. As I said in my Opposition at the RM, 'This just looks like an attempt to solve a problem that does not exist.'--JOJ ^Hutton 00:00, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Ah, I didn't know that you were part of Wikiproject Film; I respect that. I'm guessing you are their Sargent at Arms and not their Ambassador. Seriously, sorry about my lapse of tact when I was dealing with your aggression (I was partly giving you a heads up, actually; AWB found 500 articles link to that article!) Sorry about jumping the gun; I truly was starting too early (I think the producers may have pushed that sequel back a bit, too; have you heard anything?). Thank-you for recognising that I had good intentions. I truly did only want to alleviate confusion between all three titles. I honestly thought that [Title of Franchise]: [Title of Movie] was the way to do that (similar to Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl like one editor said), and since half of the world already called the movie by the two-part title, it seemed like a neat solution to name the three articles. I didn't think it harms anything, I thought it was more accurate. I didn't think American editors would mind. What do you think the solution should be? Prhartcom (talk) 01:00, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

There are no so-called 'jobs' or titles within the Film Wikiproject. Like all of Wikipedia, it's basically a voluntary endeavor amongst like minded editors who have a certain passion for film and articles that pertain to films. That does not mean to say, however, that there are not disagreements among some of its participants. There are always some form of discussion happening among the more active participants at WP:FILM about how film articles should be written. In the case of a films nationality, the overall consensus has concluded that the film articles will use the nationality of the film's production companies. This includes the films title and the date formats as well. This has long been established through many debates and discussions. Again, that does not mean that everyone agrees on this, but it has evolved into a standard compromise that has worked for quite a while and across many articles.

Originally, I did not have "The Adventures of Tintin" on my watch list. I only noticed your edits when you edited the John Williams article, which is on my watch list.

Another long standing practice, when a film may have two English language titles, is to refer to a film by the subjects local title. A good example of this would be the film Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone (film). Through local consensus, the article uses the British title for the film, but in the United States the film is known as Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone. So the compromise was to use the title of the film in the United States on any article that US ties. That includes biographies, award shows, and any studio or production company. Check out the Steve Kloves article. he is an American and he wrote the screenplay for the film. So the article will use the American title of the film, even though local consensus concluded that the actual article should use the British title. Again, this has been a long established practice that has worked out. So even if there was consensus to move "The Adventures of Tintin" from its American title to it's British title, American film articles will use the American title in their text.--JOJ ^Hutton 16:39, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your explanation, It truly is good to hear anyone talk about their area of expertise. Prhartcom (talk) 21:44, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello. Regarding the recent revert you made to Massachusetts: you may already know about them, but you might find Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace useful. After a revert, these can be placed on the user's talk page to let them know you considered their edit inappropriate, and also direct new users towards the sandbox. They can also be used to give a stern warning to a vandal when they've been previously warned. Thank you. ToonLucas22 (talk) 00:24, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Look before you leap please. I'm a veteran vandal fighter. I know how to template a vandal. Only don't assume I'm stupid either. Reverting vandals on an iPhone does not automatically open up a vandals talk page so that I can add a warning. You Have to do it manually. This takes time and sometimes I don't even bother to do it when editing on my iPhone. When the vandal did it the second time, I added a warning to the vandals talk page. JOJ ^Hutton 00:28, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

There are those who write better than I do, so the exact wording could be changed if you feel it lacks a wikipedia flare to it. But that is consensus and it's what we have been referring to in all our tennis articles. It's a done deal and those athletes are specifically enabled to have flag nationality icons. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:23, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

I began a wider discussion on the talk page, but I saw nothing that included other athletes in an exemption to the MOS.--JOJ ^Hutton 22:28, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

It certainly did. Tennis was talked about extensively, and others more generally. This is wikipedia consensus as far as athletes who compete in international events such as the Olympics, Tennis and F1. Certainly not for the NFL or MLB. It's not for every athlete. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:22, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

But my removal was rapidly reverted. In 2015 Bush published the emails from his governorship online, exposing private details of employees and constituents

Then it became In 2015 Bush published the emails from his governorship online, exposing private details of employees and constituents. Most of the emails were public records under Florida's sunshine laws, but may included unredacted personal details like social security numbers.[89][90][91]

Relationship to 2016? Nil. To "silly season"? Priceless. Collect (talk) 01:52, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Removal? Fine by me. Collect (talk) 01:59, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Meetup/San Diego/April 2015. Thanks. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 03:40, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

.

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Meetup/San Diego/April 2015. Thanks. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:33, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

After moving from Los Angeles County to Kern County to San Luis Obispo County, I am finally realizing that there is life in California outside of L.A. and San Francisco, where I lived and grew up. Oh, I have also lived in San Diego, San Bernardino, San Joaquin, Yolo and Sacramento counties, and I earned my undergraduate degree in Riverside County. I am trying to breathe life into the Southern California Task Force, and I hope you will join me. Could you visit our list of participants at the other end of this link and update your description of what you are interested in doing for us, assuming that you still want to be in the mix, that is.

In recompense, I will buy you a drink during the Wikipedia Welcome Week I am planning for Morro Bay on the Central Coast in July. Yours sincerely, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 18:49, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

I've redirected the page because in its current state, it's unencyclopedic and promotional, due to the fact it was written, maintained and spammed by conflicted editors. I have no objections to a new article being created, but until it is, then I believe it should just be a redirect. Nothing against the place, just against the current article. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:12, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Your deletion has been opposed. Request a deletion but you don't immediately delete an article. You should have requested citations first. The mall is notable. JOJ ^Hutton 23:16, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Undisclosed paid editing should be deleted. I was being bold, as I believe it was the best course of action. I'm fine with you reverting me. If you do, I'll just put them up for deletion or stubify them, per WP:VERIFY. The fact is that dodgy accounts have been creating and maintaining these articles, and I'm trying to do what I believe is best for the article, which is to remove spam. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:27, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Unless you have proof of that, you are only speculating. And the last time I checked, paid editing was NOT against any Wikipedia policy that I am aware of.--JOJ ^Hutton 23:28, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Last time I checked, spamming promotional/unverified content was, WP:NOTADVERTISING and WP:VERIFY. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:32, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

You seem to be unaware of issues around COI/paid editing in WP.... happy to discuss if you have any questions. Jytdog (talk) 23:38, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Also, I'm done trying to fix issues surrounding the COI spammers and shopping malls, because I know you'll just revert it. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:40, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Will you please discuss the issues rather than edit warring? We ~can~ talk, you know! Jytdog (talk) 00:02, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Stop deleting articles and removing content. And do not re-add PRODs once they have been removed. JOJ ^Hutton 00:04, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

My offer to talk through things still stands btw. Let me know if you want to. Jytdog (talk) 14:57, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

COI and advertising is a problem, but you are going about it entirely the wrong way. Stop deleting content simply because there isn't a current citation. Request a citation before removing content, that is why there are "citation needed" tags. Don't strip articles of all of their content while at the same attempting to have them deleted. Thats about all I have to say. There is no pint in having a back and forth conversation until you follow these simple guidelines, because deleting content based on COI concerns while at the same time ignoring the objections of others, doesn't make you a hero, it makes you disruptive--JOJ ^Hutton 16:24, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for replying. I've tried to open discuss several times and when you have responded, it was once and done. I understand you have strong views on this - clearly - but are you interested in discussion? Discussion and trying to reach consensus are the heart of this place. Do let me know.Jytdog (talk) 16:34, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

I wish I had been notified of the new revelations with COF, seeing as I was the instigator of the original ban discussion and a subject of his "wrath". I also wish the ban request had been taken more seriously the second time. He's clearly not going to be productive and is hanging around to cause drama. I knew I wasn't off base when I proposed the ban originally, and I simply withdrew to save face. This wikilawyering proves me right. But I'll save my "I told you so"'s. No point in them. Moving on... TrueCRaysball | ^#RaysUp 10:35, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Well for someone who "Vowed" never to return, He sure has come back, a few times. It won't be long before the socks are blocked, but this sock-puppetry only adds to the reason why Curse of Fenric should be permanently banned. Curse of Fenric is even begging the blocking admin to undo the block, while using the sock puppet. How cute.--JOJ ^Hutton 10:55, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

I started an SPI. TrueCRaysball | ^#RaysUp 11:03, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Good Idea. I thought it would have been so obvious because the sock puppet account left a message for the blocking admin as well, but Nick answered the message as if it was a completely different person. So I guess SPI is the only way to go.--JOJ ^Hutton 11:07, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Alight, I think it's all set up. I'm going to bed, I'll check on it when I get up. TrueCRaysball | ^#RaysUp 11:19, 2 August 2015 (UTC)