User talk:JHunterJ

This is the talk page for talking to, with or about me - JHunterJ

Please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~). Place comments that start a new topic at the bottom of the page. The easiest way to do this is by clicking the [new section] on the navigation bar above.

Please respect Talk page guidelines & Wikiquette

I will reply here unless you ask me to reply somewhere else.

Hello
I notice you completed the RM on this page a few months ago: I'm contacting you as I think this page move was questionable. There were four comments in favour, with comments like 'expectation will be for aircraft pilot to be primary', 'clearly primary', 'I agree aircraft pilot is primary', 'common usage... IMHO', while the two against both pointed to actual pageviews, which showed (or currently show) no such thing. Disregarding a spike for Maritime Pilot in March (probably due to the Suez canal incident), it shows TV pilot ahead of Aircraft and Maritime pilot, which are broadly similar. There is nothing to suggest one option is 'more likely than any other single topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined' to be the primary topic. Can we revisit this? Moonraker12 (talk) 11:56, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
PS: I meant to add, The first comment, which started 'I agree', actually ended 'I think the current setup (ie. Pilot as a noprimary dab page) is probably best': Was this misconstrued as support? Moonraker12 (talk) 12:27, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There wasn't consensus after a week, so I relisted it. The comments made after the relisting favored the implemented steps. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:49, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough; but as the four votes in favour were personal opinion, while the three opposed were based on fact, do you think, on reflection, that the original arrangement would be better? If not, can you suggest how I should pursue it further? Moonraker12 (talk) 22:17, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've no objection to a new move request. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:48, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks: I’ll put my thinking cap on... Moonraker12 (talk) 18:54, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello JHJ, you removed the entry for Apache Directory Server from ADS although your comment only said "Disambiguation page style repair". Do let me know if you had an issue with the entry. Otherwise you may want to place it back. Jay (talk) 10:09, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No mention of ADS on that page, so I removed it. MOS:DABACRONYM. Cheers! --JHunterJ (talk) 14:48, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. In April 2020, you made this edit of Anderson. That disambiguation page already links to Anderson (given name), where all these people - and more - are listed. My opinion is that the section you created is WP:OR, because you're essentially saying that some people whose first name is Anderson are more "known as Anderson" than others. Again, in my opinion, that entire § People section adds no value, and it might even confuse some visitors, who may think all people with given name Anderson are meant to be listed there. --143.176.30.65 (talk) 15:00, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The disambiguation page disambiguates all topics that are ambiguous with the title, so the People section provides that value. No WP:OR in listing them in the disambiguation page if the linked article identifies them as being known by the single name. Possibly there's OR on those pages, but that would be a topic of discussion for those pages, and if that information were removed from the linked article, then the disambiguation entry would be removed. -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:16, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply. What do you think of the idea to list these people in the § Names section, under Anderson (given name), with an extra level of indentation? --143.176.30.65 (talk) 15:20, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Or, how about changing the heading from "People" to "People known as Anderson"? --143.176.30.65 (talk) 15:22, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Or, perhaps even better, give the Anderson (given name) link at Anderson the description ", list of people whose given name is Anderson, including people mononymously known as Anderson" - and then create a separate section in Anderson (given name) with those addressed by a single name. --143.176.30.65 (talk) 15:28, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

They are welcome to be listed anywhere else as well, but they need to be listed at the disambiguation page for the navigational benefit of the readers who reach the page seeking one of those topics. "Known as Anderson" could be appended to any of the headers, but is redundant with the "may refer to". -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:56, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think not a single one of those articles has a source for them being simply/commonly known as "Anderson". I can imagine they'll be called (just) Anderson, even on TV, because that's their given name. And perhaps soccer players are more likely to be informally addressed, given the whole 'one of us' vibe of the sport. What's stopping editors from adding simply/commonly known as "Anderson" claims to all other articles, and then also adding them to the more-Anderson-than-others overview... Anyway, I'm going to leave it there. I see you're an admin, you probably know what you're doing. --143.176.30.65 (talk) 21:31, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Although just the fact that literally all the more-Anderson-than-others are a) footballers, b) Brazilian, c) claim of simply/commonly known as "Anderson" without reference, tells me that it's ridiculous to keep that special little list you've created for them. --143.176.30.65 (talk) 21:44, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome to challenge the unsourced information at those articles' talk pages. Until it's removed from them, though, the disambiguation page disambiguates them. -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:53, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for Creation at 21:53, 7 July 2021 (UTC). If you do not wish to recieve future notification, please remove your name from the mailing list.[reply]

Hello :) I am writing my MA dissertation on Wikipedia Wars and the Israel-Palestine conflict, and I noticed that you have contributed to those pages. My dissertation will look at the process of collaborative knowledge production on the Israel-Palestine conflict, and the effect it has on bias in the articles. This will involve understanding the profiles and motivations of editors, contention/controversy and dispute resolution in the talk pages, and bias in the final article.

For more information, you can check out my meta-wiki research page or my user page, where I will be posting my findings when I am done.

I would greatly appreciate if you could take 5 minutes to fill out this quick survey before 8 August 2021.

Participation in this survey is entirely voluntary and anonymous. There are no foreseeable risks nor benefits to you associated with this project.

Thanks so much,

Sarah Sanbar

Sarabnas ^{I'm researching Wikipedia} _Questions? 20:32, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. You may recall "Real_Power"_poster in April 2019 we had a disruptive IP editor with an Austin, Texas-based IP constantly reverting the wording in passages in the Adam Hughes article pertaining to the "Real Power in the DC Universe" poster. Now another Austin-based IP is doing so, beginning with this edit. I then reverted it, explaining why their edits were not improvements, but they reverted it again, insisting I take it to the talk page, which I did "Real_Power_of_the_DC_Universe"_passage here. Can you participate? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 02:41, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm curious what your basis was for this RM closure and moving of Red River (Asia) to Hong River since no evidence was provided to support the new name. Thanks. —  AjaxSmack  02:26, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

But the discussion supported the move and no opposition was given, so I'm curious why you'd ask about a 16-month-old move that had unanimous support. Feel free to propose a new move. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:32, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I just stumbled on the article and was surprised at the title which is an uncommon name for the river. While there was no opposition to a move, there was also no rationale, so I was wondering if I had missed something. Thanks. —  AjaxSmack  17:16, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:09, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A recently closed Request for Comment (RFC) reached consensus to remove Autopatrolled from the administrator user group. You may, similarly as with Edit Filter Manager, choose to self-assign this permission to yourself. This will be implemented the week of December 13th, but if you wish to self-assign you may do so now. To find out when the change has gone live or if you have any questions please visit the Administrator's Noticeboard. 20:06, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm wishing you a Merry Christmas, because that is what I celebrate. Feel free to take a "Happy Holidays" or "Season's Greetings" if you prefer.  :) BOZ (talk) 20:20, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi!

You get this message because you are an admin on a Wikimedia wiki.

When someone edits a Wikimedia wiki without being logged in today, we show their IP address. As you may already know, we will not be able to do this in the future. This is a decision by the Wikimedia Foundation Legal department, because norms and regulations for privacy online have changed.

Instead of the IP we will show a masked identity. You as an admin will still be able to access the IP. There will also be a new user right for those who need to see the full IPs of unregistered users to fight vandalism, harassment and spam without being admins. Patrollers will also see part of the IP even without this user right. We are also working on better tools to help.

If you have not seen it before, you can read more on Meta. If you want to make sure you don’t miss technical changes on the Wikimedia wikis, you can subscribe to the weekly technical newsletter.

We have two suggested ways this identity could work. We would appreciate your feedback on which way you think would work best for you and your wiki, now and in the future. You can let us know on the talk page. You can write in your language. The suggestions were posted in October and we will decide after 17 January.

Thank you. /Johan (WMF)

18:13, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello! I wanted to drop a quick note for all of our AFC participants; nothing huge and fancy like a newsletter, but a few points of interest.

• AFCH will now show live previews of the comment to be left on a decline.
• The template {{db-afc-move}} has been created - this template is similar to {{db-move}} when there is a redirect in the way of an acceptance, but specifically tells the patrolling admin to let you (the draft reviewer) take care of the actual move.

Short and sweet, but there's always more to discuss at WT:AFC. Stop on by, maybe review a draft on the way? Whether you're one of our top reviewers, or haven't reviewed in a while, I want to thank you for helping out in the past and in the future. Cheers, Primefac, via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:00, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

22:52, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Hi, You are one of the few admins I'm familiar with (from when I was more active in DAB stuff). Wonder if you or a colleague could look into https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/104.205.115.95. Seems to be Wiki knowledgable, connected to other controversies and a bit abusive. Suspect a IP Talk page message from me would be pretty useless and maybe you or other admins have other ways if appropriate. Thanks, --John (User:Jwy/talk) 04:51, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can you be more specific on the problem edit or edits? -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:50, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

When I looked at it 4 days ago it just seemed fishy. I think it is just I'm not used to IP editors knowing so much about the site. Let's let it go. ...but I haven't needed it in a while - if you could remind me the official way to bring something to an admins attention? --John (User:Jwy/talk) 05:52, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Dispute resolution probably has the way, depending on what the issue ultimately is. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:02, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm wishing you a Merry Christmas, because that is what I celebrate. Feel free to take a "Happy Holidays" or "Season's Greetings" if you prefer.  :) BOZ (talk) 23:12, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

— Moops ^⋠T⋡ 04:31, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, JHunterJ. I'd like to wish you a wonderful First Edit Day on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! Chris Troutman (talk) 19:15, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm wishing you a Merry Christmas, because that is what I celebrate. Feel free to take a "Happy Holidays" or "Season's Greetings" if you prefer.  :) BOZ (talk) 00:19, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Can you give me a bit of perspective on something? A while ago you made this edit [1] which included using the efn template. More recently I have had a (to me) somewhat fruitless discussion with the predominant editor (c. 40%) of this article about the referencing style – trying to explain how the article would be more reader-friendly if it used some templates.

I left that matter alone as I was getting nowhere, but then found a dead link in a reference that was combined with another source – so I couldn't clearly tag which reference was the problem. I therefore made this edit[2] with the main purpose of highlighting the dead link. (I want to read the reference to get a complete knowledge of the subject.) This was reverted, followed by all the efn templates[3] (three of them from at least two editors) being removed. (To be clear, I have never added an efn template to this article.) The dead link template was ignored. The other editor has posted on my talk page with something that I don't think is particularly helpful – but perhaps I am too dim to understand what is wrong with the suggestion that I made.

Have you any general thoughts on this matter? I probably don't have a full understanding about mixed referencing styles in an article – many articles that I have worked on have mixed styles and nobody seems too fussed about it. I tend to use sfn templates where there is short referencing (with a separate bibliography or sources section) and the citebook (etc.) and r templates otherwise.

I am putting an answer to the comment on my talk page, which I hope does not inflame the situation.

I should perhaps add that on Galley I did try and explain to the same editor that there were some ambiguous references, but I don't think they ever understood what I was talking about. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 23:34, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Happy First Edit Day! Hi JHunterJ! On behalf of the Birthday Committee, I'd like to wish you a very happy anniversary of the day you made your first edit and became a Wikipedian! The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:52, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @JHunterJ, I am the creator of the page Alcon (mythology) which was changed into List of people named Alcon from classical myth. Can this be revert back or else be renamed/ moved into a more shorter name like Alcon (classical myth) or Alcon (Greek myth) for the convenience of the readers? I will wait for your response. Thank you. Markx121993 (talk) 07:39, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's the standard naming convention for lists. How are readers inconvenienced? -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:51, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Happy adminship anniversary! Hi JHunterJ! On behalf of the Birthday Committee, I'd like to wish you a very happy anniversary of your successful request for adminship. Enjoy this special day! The Herald (Benison) (talk) 04:25, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Happy adminship anniversary! Hi JHunterJ! On behalf of the Birthday Committee, I'd like to wish you a very happy 17th anniversary of your successful request for adminship. Enjoy this special day! Sdkb talk 15:37, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Wikipedia, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this anonymous survey.

You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.

The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement .

Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 19:22, 23 October 2024 (UTC) [reply]

Hello,

I recently invited you to take a survey about administration on Wikipedia. If you haven’t yet had a chance, there is still time to participate– we’d truly appreciate your feedback. The survey is anonymous and should take about 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement.

Take the survey here.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 00:18, 13 November 2024 (UTC) [reply]