User talk:Jojhutton/Archive 6

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Signpost: 29 April 2013

MOS:DATE on Centralia mine fire

Sorry, forgot to re-instate your changes after rvv'ing:( DMacks (talk) 13:29, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 06 May 2013

Protection Policy

You took part in a previous discussion on the protection policy talk page about the reference to "uncontroversial" edits. A survey is now in progress on that page in response to a request for comments. You may want to visit that talk page again and provide your input to try to obtain consensus. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:53, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 13 May 2013

The Bugle: Issue LXXXVI, May 2013

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 13:15, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to you let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You do not need to participate; however, you are invited to help find a resolution. The thread is "Talk:Terra Nova (TV series)". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBot operator / talk 16:36, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Love history & culture? Get involved in WikiProject World Digital Library!

World Digital Library Wikipedia Partnership - We need you!
Hi Jojhutton! I'm the Wikipedian In Residence at the World Digital Library, a project of the Library of Congress and UNESCO. I'm recruiting Wikipedians who are passionate about history & culture to participate in improving Wikipedia using the WDL's vast free online resources. Participants can earn our awesome WDL barnstar and help to disseminate free knowledge from over 100 libraries in 7 different languages. Please sign up to participate here. Thanks for editing Wikipedia and I look forward to working with you! SarahStierch (talk) 20:47, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 May 2013

The Signpost: 27 May 2013

Mr Kirk Douglas

I just think oevre is too dense a word for some of our readers. I dont think the US or UK style is that relevant here. In any event, its very debatable if my or your version is one or the other. I dont percieve oevre as an American terminology. Ive heard it in the Uk many times. I cant be arsed and refuse to get drawn into an edit war over such a banal subject, and you seem to have wikitime under you belt too, so lets just discuss the linguistic clarity and the easist term to describe Kubricks attatchment to Spartacus. You will see im pretty reasonable as an Ed, if you check my history, so if I change something its only because it seems imoprovable. Cheers! Irondome (talk) 03:31, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 05 June 2013

Cary Grant

Your version is not the consensus version, it's quite clear on the talk page. The last thing is you being asked to start an RfC or leave well enough alone. The consensus was formed years ago in a previous section and hasn't changed. Yworo (talk) 04:17, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 12 June 2013

AN/I noitification

Next time I'll just call a spade a spade tell it like it is, a lie
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Information icon Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Yworo (talk) 21:21, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

WP:BOOMERANGJOJ Hutton 21:23, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Stop icon Your recent edits to Talk:Cary Grant could give Wikipedia contributors the impression that you may consider legal or other "off-wiki" action against them, or against Wikipedia itself. Please note that making such threats on Wikipedia is strictly prohibited under Wikipedia's policies on legal threats and civility. Users who make such threats may be blocked. If you have a dispute with the content of any page on Wikipedia, please follow the proper channels for dispute resolution. Please be sure to comment on content, not contributors, and where possible make specific suggestions for changes supported by reliable independent sources and focusing especially on verifiable errors of fact. Thank you. The term "slander" has a specific meaning under U.S. law, and the repeated use of the word "slanderous" could be interpreted as implying a legal threat. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:25, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Thank You Orange Mike for that added sentence at the end that isn't part of the "warning" template my use of the word "slander" was clearly in context of an in-Wiki comment and in no way the comment I made ever implied to mean that I was trying to make an outside legal threat. In fact I clearly mention admin intervention both times I refer to Yworols lies. JOJ Hutton 21:41, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Read the policy. Such usage is still considered to be a legal threat: "For example, if you repeatedly assert that another editor's comments are 'defamatory' or 'libelous', that editor might interpret this as a threat to sue for defamation, even if this is not intended." The policy is based on the perception of the recipient as to whether there is a threat to chill their speech, not the after-the-fact claim of the accuser about what their intent was. Yworo (talk) 21:42, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
I've closed the ANI thread without action, as you've clarified that it wasn't a legal threat. Still, as Orangemike points out, you really should steer clear of words like "slander", and others of its ilk like "defamatory", as they can be easily misinterpreted as legal threats. Even though they're unintended, perceived legal threats can lead to nastiness that it's just better to avoid. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 22:27, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Wiknic Poway / San Diego

Join us this Saturday for the Great American Wiknic!

Great American Wiknic San Diego at Old Poway Park, Poway
You are invited to the Wikipedia:Meetup/Poway/Wiknic/2013/ at Old Poway Park next to the Poway–Midland Railroad in Poway. We would love to see you there, so sign up and bring something fun for the potluck! :)

Boilerplate message generously borrowed from Wikimedia NYC and others.
I hope to meet you there! Jim1138 (talk) 08:24, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 19 June 2013

The Bugle: Issue LXXXVII, June 2013

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 08:52, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 June 2013

Proof of claimed consensus on Cary Grant

Closing trolling comments. Discussion should stay at the articles talk page
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

You have promised to prove what the previous consensus was. I haven't seen you do that on the talk page yet. Go ahead, prove it with diffs as you said you would do. Yworo (talk) 03:57, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Also, please remember that the default duration of an RfC is 30 days. So far, the consensus coming out of the RfC is against English-American. In any case, the article should remain as stated in the RfC until the RfC ends. The only way the RfC can end early is for an uninvolved editor to close it and summarize the new consensus formed. That's what happening here, by starting the RfC, your claimed consensus prior to July 2011 and the July 2011 consensus have both been thrown out. The results of the RfC will form a clear new consensus. Continued harping about some imagined consensus from prior to two years ago hurts rather than helps your case, because it shows that you don't understand what consensus or an RfC actually are. Really, read WP:CONSENSUS. Yworo (talk) 04:16, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 03 July 2013

Future Korean War

Hi, you participated in the first deletion discussion for this article; it's up for deletion again at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Future Korean War (2nd nomination). If you'd like to comment again, feel free. Thanks, Ansh666 03:49, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 10 July 2013

The Signpost: 17 July 2013

Tijuana

OOPS SORRY, I didn't check. If you want I'll expand it. GoPurple'nGold24 05:48, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXVIII, July 2013

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 15:27, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 July 2013

The ohio state university

I removed it while checking edits on a new editor that had been changing references in other articles to the "The" version. I thought that was what the talk page said too, but don't understand why it wasn't already there. I will ask you the same question I posed on his talk page. Do you know of any reference that states "The Ohio State University" is actually the official name? Gtwfan52 (talk) 04:18, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

There are thousands of them. The consensus is to have the official name in the lead. All other college articles do the same thing.JOJ Hutton 04:26, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
I do not have a problem with it being in the Ohio state article. Even if it weren't the official name, it would merit mention due to the vainglorious usage of it by the athletes in TV coverage of the games. I do have a problem with it being in other articles. Even though commonname only applies as policy to titles, the spirit of it is that the title of an article on a specific thing is what its name is on Wikipedia. And I still haven't seen a reference. It is easy to say their are thousands of them. Name one. Gtwfan52 (talk) 04:42, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
I am not going to get into a philosophical debate on whether or not The Ohio State University is or is not the official name and whether or not you feel that articles should or should not use the official name in the body of the articles based on some random criteria that you just came up with. The "spirit" of WP:COMMONNAME is not that it applies to everything. Its article titles. The Ohio State University is the official school name. See the website, its cited in the article already.--JOJ Hutton 04:48, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 July 2013

The Signpost: 07 August 2013

The Signpost: 14 August 2013

The Bugle: Issue LXXXIX, August 2013

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 00:03, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Your edit

Many apologies, it certainly wasn't deliberate. I was getting a lot of edit conflicts trying to post and I know there's a bug that sometimes wipes the previous edit when that happens, so I'm guessing it was something like that. Black Kite (talk) 16:41, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Naming conventions

Closing this thread so as to keep the conversation in one place
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

"A United States city's article should never be titled "city, country" (e.g., "Detroit, United States") or "city, state, country" (e.g., "Kansas City, Missouri, USA"); that is contrary to general American usage."--Soulparadox (talk) 00:09, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Read the whole guideline. Especially the part that says it refers to ALL articles, including their usage in the body of articles. This has been discussed in the past and although its ok to add the country in the infobox, its redundant and redundant to do so in the body of the article each and every time a city appears. That's why you don't see it often. JOJ Hutton 00:17, 26 August 2013 (UTC).
I apologize, but I have been unable to find the section in the guideline that you are referring to and this may simply be due to my inability to do so. As you directed me to only one section of the guideline, then I did not see any reason to review the entire page. If you could once again highlight the specific section in question, then I would be most appreciative.--Soulparadox (talk) 00:32, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 21 August 2013

The Signpost: 28 August 2013

Your reverts of my edits

Films are generally considered artistic works that are 'signed' by the director and or the author of the book upon which they based. These examples are unambiguously "signed" by British artists, such as Richard Attenborough, Alfred Hitchcock and Ridley Scott. Record companies don't 'own' nationality over works of the recordings of the musicians in their stable. Same goes for books and their authors vs publishers. That is certainly not the convention here on WP, where each book, album or single most definitely takes on the nationality of the artist(s) and not the notional "backers". Strong ties means they should have dmy dates and British spellings. Regards, -- Ohc ¡digame!¿que pasa? 12:37, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Absolutely not. I do not know where you get that from, but that is not how Wikipedia article shave been formatted. Show a policy or guideline to back that up please. And if you really believe that, try going ahead and changing all the dates at Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone (film) to DMY since the director is American and see how far that gets you.--JOJ Hutton 12:40, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

September 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to A Muppet Family Christmas may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • {Infobox television

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 14:29, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 04 September 2013

films

Sorry about this one. I promise you that I have been a lot more careful since the position on film nationalities was clarified. It's just "one that got away". -- Ohc ¡digame!¿que pasa? 01:53, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

And I do appreciate that you have been trying. I have noticed. I suppose that you are most likely looking at the lead section and if it simply says "British film", you go by that. Unfortunately, someone removed the "American" at some point, which ignores the contribution of an American film company. And as a side note, the fact that you recognized and tool responsibility for the mistake, speaks volumes. Thanks again. And I'll try to be a bit softer in my edit summaries as well if there ever is another mistake.--JOJ Hutton 01:59, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for your understanding. I had created my worklist using CatScan, and had worked probably half way through it when the problems arose which we then discussed. It was too late to run catscan again to exclude Category:American films because that would have caused more problems and repeated edits. As it stands, pre-parsing the articles' infoboxes and categories for the US connection was a lot of extra work I could have done without. ;-) -- Ohc ¡digame!¿que pasa? 09:08, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

You want the JoJ!

Sorry, I saw your signature and could only think of this hilarious classic, which spawned a giant in-joke among YTPers called the JoJ: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ps-8QspaBug Microphonicstalk 15:53, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 September 2013

WikiProject Military history coordinator election

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! Kirill [talk] 16:54, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Frederick Russell Burnham FAC

Hey, I saw on your page that you are interested in Califonia history and that you are a part of the American Old West group. I nominated an article to FAC that I think would be of interest to you. Burnham lived most of his life in California as a frontiersman and he was a member of the first California State Parks Commission. Mount Burnham in California was named in his honor in 1951. Although he is better known in England than in the U.S., biographers on both sides of the pond have referred to him as the last of the great scouts. Below is a real quick summary:

Frederick Russell Burnham -- Born on a Sioux Indian reservation in Minnesota in 1861, he moved to the American Southwest and learned scouting from some of the last of the old cowboys and frontiersmen. After the American frontier closed, Burnham moved to Africa, became Chief of Scouts and a major in British Army, taught scouting to Robert Baden-Powell (founder of the Scouting movement), and was decorated for his heroism by King Edward VII without ever giving up his U.S. citizenship.

I hope you you enjoy the article and we could really use your comments. Please take a look at Burnham's FAC and post a your comments. The article now has four supporters and one opposed. The one person who opposed the FAC refuses to provide any actionable items that we can work on and she also refuses to remove her opposed. If you have any suggestions for improving the article, please post your ideas to Burnham's FAC and I will be happy to get to work on your comments promptly.

Thanks! Ctatkinson (talk) 17:54, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

inre Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them (film)

Yes, the topic of the planned film is getting and will likely continue to get lots of coverage, but when considering planned films we look to the applicable guideline and consider whether or not that coverage gives us anything solid about the film itself... casting, production, plot, etc. To be fair to our readers, I think a temporary redirect to either J.K. Rowling or the article on the 2001 book "Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them" by that author (and where this adaptation is already written about), is a valid consideration. The arguments about how the film topic might become supremely notable have a bit of merit, but I think it logical that we send readers for now to where it makes sense under policy, guideline and essay to keep readers informed. What'cha think? Schmidt, Michael Q. 02:27, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 September 2013

The Bugle: Issue LXXXXX, September 2013

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 23:50, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 September 2013

The Signpost: 02 October 2013

Edit-a-thons at UC Riverside

The UCR Libraries are hosting three edit-a-thons focusing on their great special collections (science fiction, water resources, the Inland Empire and more) on Oct. 12, 2013, Oct. 26, 2013, and Nov. 23, 2013. Please participate if you can! Details and signup here. All are welcome, new and experienced editors alike! -- phoebe / (talk to me) 04:10, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Leading zero on dates

According to ISO 8601, the leading zero is supposed to be there. In the real world, of course, dates are presented in a variety of formats. VQuakr (talk) 23:03, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm only concerned with MOS:DATE. JOJ Hutton 23:09, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Tb

Hello, Jojhutton. You have new messages at Talk:Disneyland Railroad.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

pbp 23:16, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

International association football articles use dmy format

Just because it was staged in the US doesn't mean that WP:STRONGNAT applies. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:16, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes STRONGNAT does apply. It was a US hosted event. Therefore this year would use MDY. JOJ Hutton 00:19, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
No it doesn't which is why it has been dmy until this point. It wasn't a US-hosted event, it was a FIFA-hosted event and staged by USSF, but FIFA paid the bills, not USSF. You may confirm this at the football project talk page and many of the other FIFA tournaments held on US soil. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:05, 10 October 2013 (UTC)


tags on iPhone 5C

hi! after you removed the maintenance tags from iPhone 5C, i opened a discussion about the appropriateness of the tags in a new talk page section. since i do not feel that i am particularly knowledgeable or interested in this subject, i thought it might be best to ask you to contribute to the discussion. note that i'm mostly impartial about the presence of the tags (although i can see the reasoning behind a few of them), and i only re-added them to oppose their removal without explanation. i have also asked the original tagger, User:Zach Vega, to provide input. sorry about the rather scattered nature of this message! thanks, ~ Boomur [☎] 01:06, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 09 October 2013

Primeval World

Content discussions should be left at the articles talk page.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

As it stands, Primeval World is in violation of policy and needs to be merged or deleted. It is completely unsourced, meaning any content within it can be removed at any time. Furthermore, there's hardly any content to begin with: all but a few sentences of the article is either in violation of WP:NOT, or has been in the Disneyland Railroad for years. As such, I find your reverting to be unfathomable. Furthermore, you assert that it passes WP:GNG when this is clearly not the case as the article is unsourced. Even if it did pass GNG, that in no way precludes a merger, which is clearly the preferable option when an article has so little content that's not redundant to other articles. pbp 20:00, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

I have again closed the merger discussion as your reopening of a discussion that had gone a week was disruptive. A majority of editors (a 2:1 majority) agreed that the article should be merged even if it was sourced. You don't get to arbitrarily decide more time is needed because a discussion didn't go your way. pbp 20:07, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 October 2013

The Bugle: Issue XCI, October 2013

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 22:33, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 October 2013

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Information icon Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Jojhutton reported by User:Blurred Lines (Result: ). Thank you. Blurred Lines 18:18, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi, you were also reported, erroneously, to Wikipedia:AIV, but I removed the notice. FWIW, "under construction" tags can stay up for 24 to 48 hours, as long as it's not frivolous, that is, not used to prevent others from editing. Bearian (talk) 19:41, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

YMD date formats

When unifying date formats, please consider MOS:DATEUNIFY & WP:STRONGNAT, both of which support YMD in refs, & WP:DATERET which guides us against changing formats previously established . This script: importScript('User:Gimmetoo/vector.js'); // converts accessdates to YMD --JimWae (talk) 11:18, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

I understand that the guidelines support those date formats. I also don't see anything wrong with unifying ALL the date formats throughout the article. No harm, no foul.--JOJ Hutton 11:25, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
The issue is that doing so is putting your personal preferences above the work done by others & the preferences of those who began the article, and have not asked for a new consensus. That is not working co-operatively. The purpose of WP:RETAIN is to prevent edit warring. Making HUNDREDS of such edits in violation of WP:RETAIN IMMEDIATELY AFTER I informed you of the problem is definitely NOT WORKING COOPERATIVELY. You can expect me to take this up with the wider community if you continue to do so--JimWae (talk) 19:06, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
Hardly an issue worth a wiki meltdown by your part. And to be honest its a fairly odd thing to be concerned with since there is no harm done and either way is correct.--JOJ Hutton 19:16, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
Which would make it hardly worth contravening on your part.--JimWae (talk) 20:39, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
Your accusation of me being a "Wikistalker" is very poor form on your part. After a single revert of an edit which has no real benefit, changing something you already acknowledge to be correct, you immediately become unpleasant. I've edited the Indiana article before, so it's on my watchlist, and I reverted a pointless edit. Please stop. Thanks. Omnedon (talk) 20:45, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
I have a long list of instances of you reverting me and challenging me on several talk page issues in which you had never been involved in before. These are signs of stalking/hounding. --JOJ Hutton 20:49, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
I watch lots of articles. Including Indiana. For you to jump to an accusation of "wikistalking" after a single revert is extreme, to say the least. This is not the way to get along on Wikipedia. Omnedon (talk) 20:52, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
In addition, for you to forge ahead with edits that have been questioned is not the way to go. Have a discussion about it. You're not helping anything with this behavior. Omnedon (talk) 20:55, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
Years of abuses have a way of making one act extreme.--JOJ Hutton 20:53, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
  • And I'm at a loss for words as to why the two of you are getting so bent out of shape over the changes to the date formats in the US states articles. Each of those states had a mix of date formats, MDY, DMY, and YYYY. All I was doing was unifying those dates into a single format. That is the guideline you know.--JOJ Hutton 21:02, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
    • I have started a discussion of your editing practices at [1]--JimWae (talk) 21:19, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

October 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Iowa may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • " <ref>[http://search.legis.state.ia.us/NXT/gateway.dll/ic/1/2/11?f=templates$fn=document-frame.htm).0$q=$uq=1$x=$up=1 1857 CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE OF IOWA — CODIFIED]. Search.legis.state.ia.us (

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 20:41, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

WP:MOSNUM reverts

I just wanted to let you know that I have RB'ed your edits to United States Virgin Islands records in track and field and to 1983 Virginia Slims World Championship Series, as they were inconsistent with the other articles. If you want me to go back to your revision, just let me know. Thank you. Epicgenius(give him tirade • check out damage) 13:21, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

The article United States Virgin Islands records in track and field should be MDY per STRONGNAT at least.--JOJ Hutton 13:22, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
Okay. So, do you want me to undo my reversion? Epicgenius(give him tirade • check out damage) 15:37, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
I would like to follow WP:STRONGNAT. I understand that many of the other articles use DMY for dates, but the United States and its territories use MDY. Per STRONGNAT, Wikipedia articles should follow the moast common date format for the subject of the article. Since the United States is the subject, the article should use MDY.--JOJ Hutton 15:41, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
I'm taking that as a 'yes'. I will revert it. Epicgenius(give him tirade • check out damage) 02:12, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 October 2013

The Signpost: 06 November 2013

A barnstar for you!

The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
I cannot tell you how many times over the last few months I have seen your name pop up on my watchlist, mostly for gnomish sports edits. It is those constant minor edits that people like you who make sports content creators look good. Thank you very much for your tireless contributions, and also for your service to America, about which I read on your userpage. Happy editing! Go Phightins! 02:47, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Brave edit war

Is there some way you and User:Andromeda can resolve this dispute on Brave (2012 film)? I understand you're not the only one reverting, but you are the primary one. Maybe you could try posting something other than an edit warring warning to his/her talk page, or referencing the old discussion on the article's talk page. If this keeps up, I'm inclined to report the whole conflict to WP:AN3. Nothing personal, but it's just gone on way too long. --Fru1tbat (talk) 15:04, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Given that the edits are against consensus and against MOS:FILM, it's safe to assume that removal of the information is correct. Others have also removed the non-plot information. I also began a discussion thread on the talk page which Andromeda refuses yo participate in. And don't think that this is an edit war between twe users simply because I am usually the first one to revert. If Androneda wishes to discuss the situation the owner of that account can make the case on the talk page. JOJ Hutton 16:52, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 13 November 2013

Richie Incognito

You keep adding the recentism tag to the article, but it is not appropriate. The only mention of recent events is in a single section and a mention about his current status in the lead. The majority of the article covers the entirety of his life and career. Can you please explain why you feel this tag is appropriate? -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 14:04, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

That "single" section is larger than any other section in the article including entire playing seasons. Please think of events in their historical context.JOJ Hutton 14:16, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
The size of the section is not the only factor to consider. By comparison, his college section compares in size to this one and the professional section is larger but has limited detail due to limited relevant information. We may find that his notability in the long term is more for this incident than his playing career. Only time will tell. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 14:28, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
Maybe, maybe not. Time may tell, but like the banner says, the article is a bit slanted towards the recent stuff and gives undue weight to a single incident by basically giving a day by day breakdown of what has been happening. When this starts to happen, sections tend to become over bloated with small details that ordinarily wouldn't have historical relevance. The only important parts are that the event happened. JOJ Hutton 16:11, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
You have a point. We're not looking for a news story. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 17:54, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Breaking references

This edit and several others that you made using that script broke references. {{singlechart}} uses the parameter to build a URL to officialcharts.com. Since officialcharts.com uses URLs like http://www.officialcharts.com/archive-chart/_/1/1979-08-18/ , changing 1979-08-18 to "August 18, 1979" broke it.

Please remember that it is your personal responsibility to verify that every change you make to dates and similar items is valid, even if you are using a script to do so.—Kww(talk) 03:53, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Well let us not forget that I wouldn't even have to have made any edits on those articles if an anon ip hadn't been changing the date formats in the first place against WP:STRONGNAT and WP:DATERET. Second, the script works that way. I didn't create it. It would be nearly impossible to go through all the references to insure that none are broken. If changing the format changes or breaks the reference, then perhaps a better solution should be devised for that reference. Because that's a fairly big flaw. Third, I'm not sure why nobody decided to notice that the date formats had been changed by an ip for over a month, but it seemed that several editors noticed when some minor reference was broken. JOJ Hutton 12:19, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
I actually noticed because I saw the flurry of corrections by an IP. That doesn't reduce your culpability. It doesn't matter what way the script works: if it makes that change and it's wrong, it's your fault for not fixing it before you saved. It wouldn't be nearly impossible to check things: it's mandatory. If you will not review the changes the script makes for accuracy, you must not run the script.
As for why people didn't notice the date change in the first place, that's probably because many of us don't actually care what date format is used as long as it's consistent. It's fine to correct them, but it isn't fine to break the article while doing so.—Kww(talk) 15:45, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
First off, I don't need a lecture on how to edit Wikipedia from you or anyone else. I was basically reverting some errant changes made by another ip and couldn't simply undue the changes due to conflicting edits. I used the best method available to me at the time. Also you act like I knew that the citations were broken. I had no idea and it would be cumbersome for you, me, or anyone else to go through every single citation and make sure that they weren't broken links after every edit. If everyone had to do that, nothing would ever get done and It would be too difficult to make even the most minor changes. NOW that I know that this is an issue I can be a bit more careful of watching out for this in the future, but if I had no idea that the script would break this link, so a friendlier reminder rather than a lecture may have been more appropriate. As an admin you need to be more understanding and less bureaucratic about how you deal with honest mistakes.
Also I noticed while making a few changes this morning that there is a better way to format those citations so that the script will not change the date. It's basically all in the way it's written. Some if the citations are written as YMD. The script will change the format if they are YMD. But if they are written as DMY with the day written as 1st, 2nd, 3rd....., the script will not change the date format. Perhaps you should begin there with changing all the YMD formats to DMY formats rather than lecturing people about how culpable they are for minor mistakes. That way we take care of the problem once and for all. JOJ Hutton 18:35, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
The format of the date in a call to {{singlechart}} is forced by the format of officialcharts.com. I have no idea you want me to format the changes so that your script will ignore them and they will still work. officialcharts.com uses y-m-d formats in its URL:it's beyond anyone on Wikipedia's power to change.
In terms of my attitude towards this, it's simple: when I saw that you had broken a dozen article in rapid succession, I left you a note reminding you of your responsibility to check your edits. When you attempted to deny that it was your responsibility, I became more forceful. Since you continue to deny your responsibility, I will remind you of it again: it is mandatory that you check over changes you have made when you run a script and manually correct any errors the script may have made. Ignoring errors because you used a script to introduce them is not an option on your part.—Kww(talk) 19:11, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
Well then if using YMD is a problem then a better solution would be to use the DMY in the citations as that appears to work just as well with the site, and won't break if someone uses a script. And I was not ignoring an error. Again you accuse me of knowingly breaking this link. I had no idea, but someone came after me and fixed it. That's called collaborative editing. We are suppose to be watching each other's back. Like I said before now that I'm aware of this problem I will watch out for it in the future but we can't expect every single editor to check every single link after every single edit. That would be absurd. Yes mistakes may be made from time time to time and yes a link will be broken every once in a while, but those are small problems compared to what you are suggesting. Given that I rarely edit these song articles anyway, I doubt there will many problems. The only reason why I even made those edits in the first place is because I was looking up the year that one if those songs was released and noticed that the date was DMY despite the obvious fact that it was recorded by an American artist. I went into the editing history and noticed that an ip made several changes to several articles last month. So I basically fixed the date format on only the songs first recorder by an American artist.
I hope that you never make an honest mistake on editing some article and someone starts lecturing you about.JOJ Hutton 19:36, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
If you make an honest mistake, admit it and move on. You're not doing that. I agree with Kww -- every edit must be checked. Errors occur, yes. Other editors may find and fix them, yes. But becoming defensive when they are mentioned isn't the way to go. Omnedon (talk) 22:26, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
Yep, an honest mistake. I realized it when the ip corrected the links, but I had no idea that the links would break because of it. I'm also not going to admit that I knowingly was creating bad links which is what Kww is basically accusing me of. Nor am I going to check every single link on every single article that I edit. That would be insane and nobody would be expected to do that. There may be a very few times that a link using a script may get broken, but thats no reason to check every link on every edit. Especially when in this case, there appears to be a better solution than YMD.--JOJ Hutton 22:59, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue XCII, November 2013

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 05:37, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 November 2013

Date format for US military and naval articles

These articles should use DMY format because that's what the US military uses, even if many sources don't use it. I've therefore reverted most of your recent changes to MDY. Please stop doing this to these types of articles.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 10:20, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Thats for "Modern US military". The Civil War is not Modern.--JOJ Hutton 12:11, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
While it is indeed not modern, I see no reason to make that distinction as I write in both eras and I see no need to differentiate between the two.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:11, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
You may not, but the guidelines do. STRONGNAT says that American articles should be written as MDY. Is there any other reason other than its because you write them and prefer not to make any distinction because you are not the only one writing or reading these articles?JOJ Hutton 01:16, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

No sour grapes

No, no sour grapes, objection to your peremptory and imperious ways.Wikiuser100 (talk) 04:35, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

As I told Wikiuser100, bad idea to use warning templates on regular editors (& I think the 3RR one was incorrect). And this does look like a good faith dispute. Dougweller (talk) 15:01, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

"The" Ohio State

I understand that it's the school's official name, but the use of the full name in every single appearance in the article is clumsy and plainly pointed. I reverted the mass anon edit because the article is worse for the change and because the issue has been a point of contention in the past, see Talk:Michigan–Ohio_State_football_rivalry#.22The.22_Ohio_State_University and Talk:Ohio_State_University#THE_Ohio_State_University_in_the_lead for two instances. I'm not going to change it back, because it's a silly thing to argue about, but unlike the anon editor's contribution, my revert was not mindless and I ask that you review the edit you restored and consider whether the uniform use of the school's full legal name every time the school is mentioned makes the article better, or worse. (I'd note too that the anon edits - obviously using find-and-replace - also changed the names of several articles cited in refs, which is probably flat-out incorrect.) Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 12:42, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

It's been stable for quite a long time. Better to not open up a can if worms.JOJ Hutton 12:47, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
I don't understand - the anon edit I reverted (slavishly adding "The") was about two hours old, and that was last night. The article *was* stable, without "The", for a long time. Your reversion restored the two-hour-old "The's", not the stable version. What am I missing? JohnInDC (talk) 12:54, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
My mistake on the timeline, but you have to understand that the removal of "THE" from "The Ohio State University" is actually considered a major insult to the school. This happens across multiple articles, especially during football season. And there is increased sensitivity today because the Ohio State-Michigan game is one of the biggest and longest rivalries in all of college sports and that game starts in 3 hours and 50 minutes.--JOJ Hutton 13:10, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
As a Michigan alum I'm painfully aware of the tendency of fans of one page to vandalize that of the other, especially around this time of year, and one reason I watchlist OSU pages is to keep them free of crud inserted by my less mature brethren. Check my edit history there and you'll see I do a lot of cleaning up. Now - back to the substance - I don't think that the anon editor's wholesale and reflexive edit, changing every instance of "Ohio State" to "The Ohio State University" was either well-thought out or sound, particularly seeing as it changed several reference titles, probably wrongly. May I safely revert the page to the original, stable version? JohnInDC (talk) 13:21, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
Looking over the prior discussions on the issue I see you've been in the thick of several, so I surely can't enlighten you further on any of this. So I'll just note that 1) consensus on "The" is muddy (breaking down, I think, at whether the "official" name is also the "common" name); 2) even the main OSU page doesn't employ the school's full legal name at every mention of the school; and 3) the anon edits introduced several ref errors. Give it some thought! Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 13:41, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
Oh, goodness. The more I look at it the more errors I find. Like beginning the article with "The The Ohio State University". I'm reverting it back, if for no other reason than to remove all the errors that the IP editor introduced. I don't feel like picking through the article and making sure that each of the hundred or so changes actually makes sense. If you feel like doing the job right, you are welcome to put back in the "The"s! Thanks again. JohnInDC (talk) 14:19, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
Thats fine since it was that way before, but its better to be a bit careful with some of these articles so as not to create friction, especially today of all days.--JOJ Hutton 14:26, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
I agree. I outlined my thinking on the Talk page so people will know I'm not just messing with the page. JohnInDC (talk) 14:29, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 04 December 2013

Date formatting in ship articles

Hi there Jo. Before you go changing the date format in any more ship articles, as you did here, you should know that WP:SHIPS decided a long time ago to standardize date formats in ship articles as dmy, on the basis that the US Navy uses that format. Gatoclass (talk) 03:59, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Those articles are not "Modern" US Military articles.--JOJ Hutton 04:03, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
No such distinction has ever been raised that I am aware of at Wikiships, and I very much doubt it would be supported if it was. You are however, welcome to raise the matter there, but in the meantime I think you should refrain from altering the dates in any more of these articles. Gatoclass (talk) 04:44, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 December 2013

The Bugle: Issue XCIII, December 2013

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 00:09, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 December 2013

The Signpost: 25 December 2013

The Signpost: 01 January 2014

Hi Jojhutton, I am Sebastian Wallroth from Berlin, Germany, board member of Wikimedia Deutschland. I am visiting San Diego from February 3rd to February 8th, happily invited to a wedding. I would like to meet Wikipedians. Is there a chance for a Wiki Meetup in San Diego during the first week in February? --Sebastian Wallroth (talk) 15:23, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 08 January 2014

The Bugle: Issue XCIV, January 2014

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 13:22, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Immaculate Conception

The dogma of the Immaculate Conception refers to the conception of Mary by her parents, Joachim and Anna. The Virgin Birth of Jesus is probably what you were thinking of when you made this edit. Elizium23 (talk) 23:35, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 15 January 2014

The Signpost: 22 January 2014

Disambiguation link notification for February 1

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Glory (1989 film), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page James Montgomery (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 09:07, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 January 2014

The Signpost: 29 January 2014

San Diego article

Hi, JoJ! I was wondering if you would mind keeping an eye on the San Diego article for the next couple of weeks? I am about to go on a Wikivacation. But I am in the middle of a debate with another user, who wants to add information about the street lights in San Diego to the Neighborhoods section. I have modified their additions so that the article currently has just the information that can be documented (namely, the fact that the city upgraded its street lights, when, and how). They want to insert comments about the dangers of these new street lights, and I keep deleting those comments, because they can't seem to find Reliable Sources to back up their claims. It's not an edit-war situation; they have stopped unilaterally adding stuff and are now engaging in a cordial discussion on the talk page. I hate to walk out on that discussion and I wondered if you could monitor or reply as needed while I am unavailable? If not, that's fine. Thanks! --MelanieN (talk) 17:17, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

No problem. I'll keep a special radar for that article for the next few weeks. JOJ Hutton 20:21, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
Thanks! It's not a matter of vandalism or anything like that - just a well meaning newbie who has a POV, or more accurately a point he wants to make, and is having trouble understanding the need for Reliable Source support for it. I see my goal as educating/retaining the newbie while defending the article. I'll appreciate your help while I'm gone. --MelanieN (talk) 21:01, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Star Trek

So I spend 30 min combing through the article getting rid of all the extra spaces, the full name references (when it should just be the last name), and major Wiki linking issues throughout the page and you revert the whole thing because you disagree with"a few" of the Wiki link removals?!?! You've got to be kidding me... Also, if you goto Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Linking#What generally should not be linked the last sentence covers instances where add'l linking is freely allowed - none of which are the reasons you gave for the revert. My suggestion is you restore my changes, to save us from a disagreement when I do it. At the very least you should go back and edit in the Wiki links you think shoukd stay and restore all the rest of my edits. Not trying to be a jerk, but come on. Yours - Ckruschke (talk) 01:54, 8 February 2014 (UTC)Ckruschke

The Signpost: 12 February 2014

Hachi editor

S/he is still doing it and the material is getting more and more wonky. How do we stop this? JayHubie (talk) 03:25, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 19 February 2014

Regarding Brave (2012 film)

I want to apologize in advance for my comment on my revert to your revert in this diff. I misread the reason why you reverted it, and realized due to that, my edit notice is rather rude, so I apologize. Essentially, I meant to do what I did in the following edit to clarify the title by rewording what I did; I put that information there after removing it from Cars 2, an article which that information had no purpose. Anyways, if you wish to revert what I did, I won't revert it again. Steel1943 (talk) 04:50, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

I didn't find it rude at all. You have your opinion and you should fight for it, but instead of reverting we should be discussing it on the talk page. I started a discussion already. JOJ Hutton 15:13, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Well, it wasn't as much of my opinion as much as it was me misreading your revert, and the reverting it since I, for some reason, thought it said "This movie was never named The Bear and the Bow". So, I really don't have an opinion either way. Steel1943 (talk) 21:40, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Gravity

Hi. You made an edit with the following comment. Which user do you refer to?

(date formats per WP:MOSNUM by script WP:RETAIN and WP:DATERET. This user was warned for doing this before.)

Thanks, CapnZapp (talk) 07:22, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Well the user in question, Ohconfucius, has this idea that all films that are not 100% American must use British spelling and date formats. And I mean 100% American by his standards. He likes to change any film article to DMY even with the smallest hint of British involvement. A really good example is when he change the article, A Chorus Line (film) to DMY and British spellings with this edit back in September, only because the director was British. It was an American produced film, set in an American city, written by an American, based on an American musical, and with an all American cast, but according to him, since the director was British, the article must use DMY and British spellings. And this is just a single example. He has been doing this for years. I just catch them as I see them, but I'm only one person and can not possibly keep up with his "script" changes.
As far as the "Gravity" article is concerned, I only made changes to the date format, but unfortunately the spellings remain because I don't have a script button to make those changes quickly. I would have to go through the entire article and made the changes manually.--JOJ Hutton 16:06, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue XCV, February 2014

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 23:28, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 February 2014

Wait!

You just can't wait, can you. Discussion has only been underway for 5 days. Please wait until discussion has ended. --AussieLegend (✉) 13:10, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

The discussion is over. Just because you fail to get the point and that you won't stop talking does not mean that the consensus has not been reached. You lost, its over. Nobody agrees with you and you need to just let it go.--JOJ Hutton 13:14, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
The discussion is not over while people are still discussing it and clearly, people are still discussing it. You really need to be far less aggressive in yor attitude towards discussions. Rememeber, Wikipeadia is a collaborative, not a combative project. --AussieLegend (✉) 13:36, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
No, you just won't stop talking. It's just you. Nobody else. Consensus is very evident. The fact that you won't accept that should have absolutely no bearing on the fact that everyone else thinks it should not be in the infobox. And you really need to drop the stick and move on. JOJ Hutton 13:41, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

(test) The Signpost: 05 March 2014

IPhone 6 listed at Redirects for discussion

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. TheChampionMan1234 10:00, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 12 March 2014

Cheers!

Thank you for the "thanks"!
— | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The WelshBuzzard| — 23:46, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

WP:BRD ?

Sorry to bother You here, but I really don't see the point in your second reverting. Boeing720 (talk) 22:27, 18 March 2014 (UTC)I refer to the comment "see WP:BRD". The contence wasn't comprahendable to me, in this context. Where have I've been bold ? Boeing720 (talk) 22:32, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

You changed "is" to "was", that's being Bold, the I reverted you, then we discuss. You changed it twice it matters little that you think you are right, just that you follow policies. JOJ Hutton 22:40, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
You've missinterpreted me in "think you are right". You are aware of the referendum and its result ? That is a fact, not my invention. Add to that that Ukraine as of now, has no political or military control over the peninsula. You may on the other hand think that the referendum result doesn't matter (question, not an implication) ? By the way here is a speech from an American president, which have had a profound impact of matters as the current one on Crimea.

http://wwi.lib.byu.edu/index.php/President_Wilson%27s_Fourteen_Points All the best Boeing720 (talk) 15:13, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

It's not what I think. It's the sources that say that the referendum is considered illegal by several countries. Yes there was a referendum, but no outside nation has recognized it. JOJ Hutton 15:44, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Sevastopol and BRD

This conversation should not be happening here, but at the article talk page, so that all interested parties may have a chance to participate. Please feel free to move this text to the articles talk page, if you wish
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

WP:BRD is an essay, not a policy. Please cease reverting my changes as they adhere to WP:NPOV. Stating that the city is a Ukrainian city is not WP:NPOV as the city is currently in dispute between two nations, regardless of what the majority of the international community says. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 18:04, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Use the article talk page if you wish to discuss changes to the article. NPOV is non negotiable and violations will be reverted on site.--JOJ Hutton 18:05, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
Your claim to NPOV violation is unsubstantiated. Furthermore, your second revert is a violation to WP:1RR per WP:ARBEURO. Wikipedia is a collaborative space, when you believe something to be NPOV then you use a template such as {{POV}}, {{NPOV-inline}}, or {{undue}} to then engage in a collaborative discussion in order to reach consensus rather than to revert as what you believe to be correct. I will be reporting this case to WP:1RR as you have refused to engage in a discussion on your talk page as shown above. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 18:11, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
Sorry but you don't get to make these mass changes that violate Wikipedias Neutrality policies and then claim that I am so how the bad guy. You made a bold change, I reverted you and then you are suppose to discuss on the talk page, not tell me to discuss them on the talk page. That not how dispute resolution works. --JOJ Hutton 18:17, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
Per WP:NPOV, "Articles must not take sides, but should explain the sides, fairly and without bias. This applies to both what you say and how you say it." My edits show both sides, fairly and without bias. Please, tell me, how do my edits violate WP:NPOV? —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 18:20, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Congratulations!

You're famous! Your edits and your user name were mentioned in an article on ABC News. [2] Ha ha, way to go! USchick (talk) 23:19, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

OMG. That's cool. I guess I got my 15 minutes of anonymous fame. JOJ Hutton 23:57, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

FYI on recent Ukraine edits.

Just FYI, JNC2 was banned for 24 hours for edit warring and I started an RfC on Ukraine. Cheers. EvergreenFir (talk) 00:01, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 01:51, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
For your efforts in keeping POV pushers and trolls from wrecking the website. MONGO 17:42, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
Thank you. I try. Too bad that it came down to being blocked without warning by an involved admin. I guess we just should let the inmates run the asylum instead of allowing the discussion to progress. JOJ Hutton 17:49, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
The closest the western world might get to being at war with Russia to protect the Ukraine is here on Wikipedia...the west is run by cowards and wimps and Putin knows it. Even if Putin has limited ambitions (which I doubt), the other terrorists will surely see our lack of resolve as an opportunity. In a year or two, after the Ukraine, Kazakhstan and Belarus are all back in the old Soviet camp, the editorial disagreements will be centered on Estonia, Lativia and Lithuania and whether they are part of mother Russia or not.--MONGO 19:20, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
Well I'm not trying to take sides, but I am trying to keep these articles as neutral as possible. The problem is that we get so many inexperienced people trying to add one POV or another that it gets hard to keep up, especially given that these articles are high traffic right now. This involved admin has just set Wikipedias neutrality policy back to the Stone Age. I guess we'll see what others say tomorrow when I take this to ANI. JOJ Hutton 21:45, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
Post what you would like to say now and I can repost it there, but I will caution you that it has been reviewed by more than one admin, including a former arbcom member and they seem to be declining...that doesn't mean I concur with the block or the others who won't unblock and I see no reason for a review to be done. Sadly, this is similar to when Arthur Rubin was blocked in a way because he was mostly trying to do as you were doing, which was to keep it neutral. I think, considering all the politics going on, had I been the admin in question, I might have reminded several editors and then protected the pages for 12 hours or more. I really hate blocks on established editors...its a morale killer.--MONGO 23:49, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is "Sevastopol". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! --Guy Macon (talk) 02:20, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Ukraine

Just a note to watch you don't go over WP:3RR, --NeilN talk to me 22:42, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks but violations of WP:NPOV and other core content policies should be reverted on the spot. But I won't revert again.--JOJ Hutton 22:46, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
Just so you know, that isn't correct. Vandalism and BLP violations are a defense to 3RR, but not NPOV or anything else. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 17:05, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 19 March 2014

The Bugle: Issue XCVI, March 2014

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:04, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

OSU

In response to your edit summary, the answer is "yes". I glanced at the talk page before making that change, and I don't see any consensus to buck the title of the page with that "THE Ohio State University" nonsense. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:47, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 March 2014

Refined move request on The Beatles (album)

I've opened a request to move the article to The White Album. Since you weighed in on the previous withdrawn request, would you be interested in considering the new move attempt at Talk:The Beatles (album)#Requested move 31 March 2014? Thanks, Dralwik|Have a Chat 23:04, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 02 April 2014

Disambiguation link notification for April 7

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Late for Dinner, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Robert Leighton (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 08:54, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Battle of Bunker Hill (Talk)#https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Battle_of_Bunker_Hill#Dr._Joseph_Warren_killed

Can't believe you've been waiting that long!=) Allied Rangoons (talk) 23:11, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Noah (1998 film)

If you hope to be an administrator someday, then you should adhere to WP:CIVIL by participating in a respectful and considerate way. Your comment here was uncalled for. I suggest striking out the hostile part of your comment and apologizing. Thanks, Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 00:21, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 09 April 2014

Edit thoughtfully, not vandalize by reversion.

Closing thread by a tendentious individual who continues to not get the point
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

We are reminded not to vandalize by reversion, but to please edit thoughtfully in detail. In regards to "It's a small world" article. You claim I sneak in edits. I tell the truth. Please reread the manual of style carefully from my point of view and be considerate.Disneywizard (talk) 17:22, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Proof of drive hunting

These discussions need to stay on the articles talk page
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

First, there's the puget sound Killer Whale captures. They may not have been in Japan, but they were drive hunts none-the-less. And how do you think the rest of their wild captured stock ended up there? They were hunted down in some way, even if it wasn't Japan. Second, for their False Killer Whales there's actually pretty good data:

False Killer Whales: Hana - Captured Japan (date of capture unknown - died 1996) Jana - Captured Japan (date of capture unknown - died 1989) Teri - Captured Taiji, Japan (captured: 1983 - died 2002) Suki - Captured Taiji, Japan (captured: 1983 - died 2005) Zori - Captured Japan (date of capture unknown - died 1990) Cassie - Captured Japan (captured: 1987 - died 2008) Hoshi - Captured Japan (captured: 1988 - died 1998)

See: http://www.ceta-base.com/phinventory/hph/hph_swf.html

Still think it's only alleged? Yes they don't obtain animals that way THESE DAYS, doesn't mean that they never have.BabyNuke (talk) 21:52, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue XCVII, April 2014

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 14:29, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Rubin Carter

Hello Jojhutton, I saw you try to flip the units of measure on the Rubin Carter article, when you did it the template couldn't read 5'8" as it can' only read actual numbers. Since the original measurement was in metric, I just added the disp=flip parameter, so it showed the imperial units first (as you were trying to do). Cheers, --kelapstick(bainuu) 21:18, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Well it was fine before you "fixed" it, so I saw very little reason for you to make any "fixes" at all. But it works that way too I suppose. JOJ Hutton 21:33, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
Ah, yes, indeed, I only saw this edit. Missed the one where you switched it. Apologies, --kelapstick(bainuu) 21:36, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
No problem, I figured that was it. I reverted my original right away and then just cut and pasted the template from another article. But either way works as long as the information is correctly presented. In fact I might try your way next time, it looks easier. JOJ Hutton 21:39, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 22

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited The Aristocats, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dean Clark (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 08:52, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 April 2014

April 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Kim Jones (athlete) may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • }}

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 21:00, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Notification of automated file description generation

Your upload of File:Christmas at the beach 053.JPG or contribution to its description is noted, and thanks (even if belatedly) for your contribution. In order to help make better use of the media, an attempt has been made by an automated process to identify and add certain information to the media's description page.

This notification is placed on your talk page because a bot has identified you either as the uploader of the file, or as a contributor to its metadata. It would be appreciated if you could carefully review the information the bot added. To opt out of these notifications, please follow the instructions here. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 14:35, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

May 10 Asian Pacific American edit-a-thon in LA

LA Meetup: May 10 Asian Pacific American edit-a-thon

Dear fellow Wikipedian,

You have been invited to a meetup and edit-a-thon at the Junipero Serra Branch of the LA Public Library (4607 S. Main St., 90037) on Saturday, May 10, 2014 from 10 am to 4 pm! This event is sponsored by the Smithsonian Asian Pacific American Center and the Asian Pacific American Librarians Association and aims to improve coverage of Asian Pacific American topics, particularly as they relate to southern California. Please RSVP here if you're interested.

I hope to see you there! Calliopejen1 (talk) - via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:11, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

To opt out of future mailings about LA meetups, please remove your name from this list.

The Signpost: 30 April 2014

Re: Interstellar

Regarding Interstellar (film) and company credits, this may be of interest to you: Template talk:Infobox film#Production company. Thanks, Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 16:09, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 07 May 2014

LA edit-a-thons on May 23 and 31

LA meetups: Adrianne Wadewitz memorial edit-a-thons on May 23 and May 31

Dear fellow Wikipedian,

There are two LA edit-a-thons in memory of Adrianne Wadewitz, a prolific Wikipedia editor, in the coming weeks. Please join us May 23 at Occidental College and May 31 at the Institute of Cultural Inquiry to combat systemic bias and help further Adrianne's legacy. No experience needed! Please RSVP at the relevant page(s) if you plan to attend.

I hope to see you there! Calliopejen1 (talk) - via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:28, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

To opt out of future mailings about LA meetups, please remove your name from this list.

The Signpost: 14 May 2014

Lipstick on a pig

...and draws attention from the bacon. Simply love it! ;-) -- Ohc ¡digame! 13:49, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue XCVIII, May 2014

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 22:19, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Simpsons cast

Yes but the whole article is 'the list'. Wallace is still there, she has just been moved to another category. The Simpsons is (sadly) still in production, so the top section is just the current cast. Gran2 18:21, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Just mentioning her, and the others is not enough. Her character is still part of the overall show and she is still the voice of the character when she appears. Thats what the guideline suggests.--JOJ Hutton 18:48, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
Right, whatever, I totally disagree with you but I care so little about this site these days I'm not fighting this. If you really think it's important, could you maybe do it properly though? Right now the article is an incoherent mess and I don't see why I should have to fix it. Gran2 16:58, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 21 May 2014

The Signpost: 28 May 2014

re. your last post on my talk

Please do not post again on my talkpage unless obligated by policy. Thank you.TMCk (talk) 01:12, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Policy says "No Personal Attacks". You have been warned.--JOJ Hutton 01:23, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Edge of Tomorrow

Hello, regarding your edit to Edge of Tomorrow (film), I looked around and could not find an Aussie connection. None of the main companies are Aussie, nor is the director. It looks like you changed to Australia based on IMDb, but I think we need to take IMDb's categorizations with a grain of salt. You could make a case for having just United States, but I think the significant production roots in the UK warrant identifying that country as well. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 14:43, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

I left my reply on the articles talk page. JOJ Hutton 16:02, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 04 June 2014

Talk page deformatting

Hi, just wanted to tell you I deformatted your reply on the Gravity (film) talk page, specifically removing the character sequence space plus asterisk, since that creates an official-looking square around your contribution. Please do not add formatting to make regular contributions (voicing your personal opinions) stand out as this might confuse newcomers into believing your replies are more important, definitive or authoritative than the rest of the section; see WP:TPG#YES and the point about "Keep the layout clear". Per WP:TPO, I sincerely hope I have not changed your intended meaning in anyway whatsoever, and you are welcome to change my edit in any way. Thank you, CapnZapp (talk) 11:29, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Well it was a honest spacing mistake, but thanks for the lecture dad. JOJ Hutton 19:35, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jojhutton/Archive_6&oldid=1168302268"