This is the talk page for talking to, with or about me - JHunterJ |
|
|
I will reply here unless you ask me to reply somewhere else.
05/2006-08/2006
10/2006-04/2007
05/2007-06/2007
06/2007-07/2007
08/2007-09/2007
10/2007-12/2007
01/2008-02/2008
03/2008
04/2008
05/2008-06/2008
07/2008-08/2008
09/2008-11/2008
12/2008-01/2009
02/2009-03/2009
04/2009-05/2009
06/2009-08/2009
09/2009-10/2009
11/2009-12/2009
01/2010-04/2010
05/2010-06/2010
07/2010-10/2010
11/2010-12/2010
01/2011-04/2011
05/2011-08/2011
09/2011-12/2011
01/2012-04/2012
05/2012-06/2012
07/2012-09/2012
10/2012-12/2012
01/2013-02/2013
03/2013-06/2013
07/2013-09/2013
10/2013-12/2013
Contents
- 1 Happy New Year JHunterJ!
- 2 I'm sorry to have to be the one to remind you...
- 3 Gamers in politics
- 4 Oops and sorry
- 5 Red Line
- 6 Nottingham
- 7 Old First Reformed Church
- 8 Elle Evans edits
- 9 February 2014
- 10 You claimed it
- 11 Regarding some recent activity on Talking bird - discussion on WP:ANI
- 12 Disruptive editor
- 13 March 2014
- 14 Disruptive move of article
- 15 Ostention of Daedalian lexicon
- 16 Luther
- 17 Sexology warning for Kosh Vorlon
- 18 Headlines in articles - POV ?
- 19 Formatting
- 20 Possible protection required
- 21 Ok, you asked
- 22 DRN about Wikipedia:MOS
- 23 Sorting out the (Al)(l)an Shermans
- 24 People's Park
- 25 Sean K. Reynolds
- 26 Talk indentation format etiquette or implied meaning
- 27 (American) two cent coint
Happy New Year JHunterJ!
|
|
Hello JHunterJ: Thanks for all of your contributions to improve the encyclopedia for Wikipedia's readers, and have a happy and enjoyable New Year! Cheers, BusterD (talk) 06:33, 1 January 2014 (UTC) |
- Thanks, BusterD! Happy and prosperous new year to you too! -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:18, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
I'm sorry to have to be the one to remind you...
...that being an admin doesn't give you any special privileges as an editor. It doesn't make you a "supereditor", nor does it relieve you of the responsibility of getting a consensus on the talk page for a controversial edit. Your continued re-insertion of a clean-up tag over the objections of another editor, and without getting a consensus for it is aggressively uncollegial (not to say unworthy of an admin), and beneath you. Please do something productive to improve the encyclopedia, and do not re-insert the tag until you have a consensus to so do. The opinions on one editor, not matter of what status, do not override the opinion of another's if there is no consensus behind it. Do the right thing, please, and don't continue to be a WP:DICK. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:03, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
- No surprises here. I've already reminded you you don't WP:OWN the article. Yes, please stop being a WP:DICK about it. -- JHunterJ (talk) 03:31, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
Gamers in politics
First of all, I wrote the Clark A. Peterson article before I ever realized he was a judge.
Then just today, I realized that Rob Bell (Virginia politician) was the same Rob Bell who worked for Iron Crown Enterprises.
John Nephew of Atlas Games was also a city councilman in Minnesota - turning the redirect into an article is on my to-do list. BOZ (talk) 03:49, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
Oops and sorry
... for this. Thanks for this. Blame it on that little too much wine at dinner. Signing off for today... - DVdm (talk) 19:26, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
- No worries at all. Thanks for helping keep them cleaned up! -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:32, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
Red Line
I added the template for the NYCS Broadway-Seventh Avenue Line to the Red Line article since all other articles of various colored lines use them. Why should Red Line be the only exception? ANDROS1337TALK 15:45, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
- If there's a template incorrectly added to multiple disambiguation pages (which aren't articles, BTW), the fix isn't to add it to the remaining disambiguation pages. Instead, it should be removed from the disambiguation pages where it has been incorrectly added. If you'll let me know which other disambiguation pages have the template, I'll be happy to clean those up too. -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:16, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
- The other colored lines (Orange Line, Blue Line, Green Line, Purple Line, Yellow Line, Brown Line, and Gray Line) all make use of the NYCS related templates for the individual lines. Only Red Line does not. ANDROS1337TALK 19:47, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
Nottingham
I need that article moved back pronto. doktorb wordsdeeds 18:30, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
- Moving it back would be contrary to WP:PRECISION, Wikipedia:WikiProject UK Parliament constituencies/Style#Article name and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Parliament constituencies#Local consensus on naming conventions contradicts the broader consensus on article titles. I need you to work with the broader consensus pronto. -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:43, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
-
- Consensus is over 1,000 articles with the disamb title being accepted and not moved. Indeed they are created with that disamb title, it's not a problem. You are disrupting a Project on the back of one reply and a red-text link. Not good enough doktorb wordsdeeds 19:30, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
-
- Nottingham South (UK Parliament constituency) is back where it belongs doktorb wordsdeeds 23:05, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
- Your definition does not appear in WP:CONSENSUS, but is contradicted by WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. -- JHunterJ (talk) 02:20, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
- Nottingham South (UK Parliament constituency) is back where it belongs doktorb wordsdeeds 23:05, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
-
- Consensus is over 1,000 articles with the disamb title being accepted and not moved. Indeed they are created with that disamb title, it's not a problem. You are disrupting a Project on the back of one reply and a red-text link. Not good enough doktorb wordsdeeds 19:30, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
-
Old First Reformed Church
Can you explain your thinking in moving this away from a disambiguator? Thanks. BMK (talk) 20:27, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
- WP:PRECISION. There's no WP amguity for Old First Reformed Church, so no qualifier is needed. -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:29, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
Elle Evans edits
Hi, would it make more sense to make the interviews and other media a section that is titled, "Further reading,"? And if so can it be moved above references? I've never seen a page where there were anything underneath external links. I thought external links was always the final section? Also, I was unaware "see also" was for other pages, but that makes sense to me now :). thank you for pointing that out.
Artthings (talk) 23:42, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
- The interviews are external links; it makes sense to include them in that section, but to maintain their grouping make it a subsection (three equals signs on each side of the heading, rather than two. Or they can be moved into the reference section, if the material in them is used to cite some of the article text. But I don't think they can go above the references. See WP:ORDER for the ordering of the appendixes (if it's made into "Further reading", it would go after the references and before the external links). -- JHunterJ (talk) 23:50, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
Okay, I will look into all of that, but in the meantime leave it as is for now. Thank you so much!!! Artthings (talk) 00:03, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
February 2014
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Taiping may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on .
- List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
- *[[Tai Ping Shan (disambiguation)]
Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 19:31, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
You claimed it
- Keeping conversation intact at User talk:Carlossuarez46#Claims of claims
Regarding some recent activity on Talking bird - discussion on WP:ANI
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding CYl7EPTEMA777's recent edits and block threats regarding "Talking bird"-named articles. The thread is User:CYl7EPTEMA777, blocking threats, and disruptive edits on Talking bird and related articles. Thank you. —Steel1943 (talk) 21:01, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
Disruptive editor
Hello, could you help me with the IP 201.215.252.50? He/she keeps edit warring on dabs, e.g. Philip Spencer (disambiguation) and Alan Cox (disambiguation). He/she won't listen, swears at me etc. His/her edits on other articles look impolite at best, too. I don't want to get involved in edit warring on these articles. Thanks for any help you can offer, Boleyn (talk) 07:23, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
- Done. Primary topic intros restored and pages watchlisted. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:07, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
March 2014
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to PI may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on .
- List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
- * [[Polyimide]]), a polymer of imide monomers
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 11:08, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
Disruptive move of article
Hi, would like to ask a temporal page protection for 1517 Hebron pogrom, where two users aggressively insist renaming it without vote to a new title (without proper sources for new title and in violation of WP:RM). There is a clear disagreement and no discussion has been made on the talk page over the past half a year. The current move is blatantly disruptive, unless proper rename procedure is made. Thanks.GreyShark (dibra) 11:56, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
Ostention of Daedalian lexicon
You recently changed the description of Verny, Russia at Verny from "several rural localities in Russia" to "a set index of localities in Russia". The phrase "set index" is meaningful to (some) Wikipedia editors, but I very much doubt that it is meaningful to casual readers of Wikipedia – the sort of folks who disambiguation pages are there to help. Do you have some objection to the use of "several foo", which I believe is used on various DAB pages to describe set indices, surname pages, DAB pages, and the like? Cnilep (talk) 01:24, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
- Typically, disambiguation pages link readers to the topics covered on Wikipedia, so set indexes get placed in "See also" and any list entries in the set index that link to topics covered on Wikipedia get repeated (with dab formatting) in the main dab list. In this case, however, none of the rural localities have coverage yet on Wikipedia, so it's awkward to include at all, but the target topic is not "several localities" but "a set index of localities". I see your point, though; perhaps "a list of localities"? -- JHunterJ (talk) 10:42, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
Luther
Hello JHunterJ, thanks for explaining your revert to my recent edit on Luther. As fas as I understand, there was a debate in 2011 about the existence of a primary topic, where some people argued that the recent Luther (TV series) should be easier to find. While a currently airing TV show might be popular as a search topic today, I fail to see how it should ever match Martin Luther in importance. I very much doubt that a fictional BBC detective will enjoy 500 years of popularity, relevance and impact on world history. Some people in the debate expressed the same astonishment but the conclusion was to keep Luther as a DAB page.
Perusing the house rules on WP:PRIMARYTOPIC I would argue that Martin Luther should be made the primary topic according to both criteria of usage and long-term significance. However I also understand the confusion when people searching for another meaning of Luther were redirected to Martin Luther and that page's hatnote only pointed to the DAB page for other people named Martin Luther. Hence my proposed solution that I boldly applied: keeping Luther as a DAB page but placing Martin Luther prominently at the top, a la Churchill, then listing all other uses. This way, everyone searching for some Luther could get there in two clicks (no bias toward any Luther), and those who never heard of Martin Luther would be educated (we're an encyclopedia after all). We could also add an extra DAB link for Luther in the Martin Luther hatnote, so people could easily find the numerous places and creative works named after the historical Luther (which are most of the things listed in the Luther DAB).
What do you think? Should we raise a debate again, or just do it? Kind regards, — JFG talk 09:03, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
- No problems with raising an RM for this. We can't just do it, because it's not clearly uncontroversial, given the earlier RM discussion. -- JHunterJ (talk) 21:03, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
Sexology warning for Kosh Vorlon
Hi JHunterJ. I just noticed this warning in my watchlist and wanted to let you know that Kosh Vorlon has previously been warned, blocked, and topic banned under the sexology case (cf ([1] - his topic ban expired 4 days ago). You're of course free to warn again if you feel that's the most appropriate action in this particular situation (I haven't looked deeply into what's going on today); I just wanted to make sure you were aware of the history. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 14:18, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks. I did see that previous history, but since the discussion ban had ended on Tuesday, and I am not familiar with the ARC sanction process, I opted (or erred) on the side of caution. Should I have gone straight to re-block? -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:26, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
- It's totally up to your judgment - discretionary sanctions are intended to be at the, well, discretion of the administrator applying them! A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 14:32, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
-
-
- I recieved the warning but that page doesn't fall under sexology, so, you're warning is misplaced (There actually IS a discretionary sanction on that page, but it's not sexology.
-
-
- It's totally up to your judgment - discretionary sanctions are intended to be at the, well, discretion of the administrator applying them! A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 14:32, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
Secondly, although consensus exists for that paragraph, it fails WP:V and WP:BLP, since no consensus can override policy, that consensus is invalid. (Very much like if consensus was used to attempt WP:NFC, such consensus would be over-ruled ). Since BLP violations can be removed on-sight and are exempted from WP:3RR, the portion of your message stating that I had violated my voluntary 0RR is also invalid.
As such, I will give you 1 week to self-revert. After that, though I would be entitled to revert you again, I would , instead start a dispute resolution process against you, which, in light of the black-and-white nature of this issue, would likely lead to you , at the very least, loosing your sysop bit. It's in your court. You have 1 week to self-revert KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh 18:26, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
- I will not be self-reverting. You are not entitled to any such revert. You may begin any dispute resolution process you see fit; you need not wait the week. -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:35, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
-
- So, then, may I assume you're not overly familiar with BLP because it really does allow for reverts of any material that violate BLP, and it's exempted from 3rr. In that case, you have a week to self-revert and familiarize yourself with that policy. KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh 18:44, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
- You may not assume anything except that I will not be self-reverting. I look forward to your opening of the dispute resolution, and please do not wait the week. -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:53, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
- Kosh, even if he were to self-revert his warning, it would mean nothing. You're already extremely aware of the Sexology case discretionary sanctions, having been sanctioned under them once already. That's logged on the case page and has been for six months, and unless we're able to wipe the memories in your head somehow, even blanking everything onwiki would not mean that you weren't aware of the discretionary sanctions. As I just asked on my talk page, please consider whether the misunderstanding here is yours. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 19:24, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
-
- I agree that I was warned under discretionary sanctions under the sexology section. I'm not asking that that be forgotten, y ou're right, that's impossible. What I'm pointing out is that he's used this sanction for an area that it doesn't cover. WP:MOS is under a discretionary sanction, but not sexology, if he wants to remove the sexology sanction and warn me under the correct sanction, I would have no problem with that. KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh 19:56, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
-
- Just for the record, while I think it's clear that Kosh Vorlon's being disruptive in sexology and gender-issues material, I think it's a very bad idea to use WP:ARBATC against anyone for discussing their style and titles matters in a civil fashion, even it is raises tiresome debates. Most MOS and AT debates are tiresome, at least to some of us, but they're a necessary part of process. I would like to see discretionary sanctions under ARBATC come to an end, as an inappropriate misapplication of content-dispute remedies to an internal self-governance area. If KV isn't being grossly incivil/attacking, fomenting some kind of canvassed anti-MOS or anti-AT "policy can go to hell" rebellion, or otherwise being truly disruptive, I wouldn't go the AE route. Don't give extra precedential weight to something that should never have been applied to MOS & AT in the first place. MOS raises tempers, but those tempers cool. If I were to run to AE every time someone "personalized a style or titles debate" or otherwise transgressed ARBATC, at least 8 people, including 3 admins, in the last week would have been sanctioned for CIVIL, NPA and AGF problems just in the verdammt bird-caps debate alone. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 21:17, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
- So, then, may I assume you're not overly familiar with BLP because it really does allow for reverts of any material that violate BLP, and it's exempted from 3rr. In that case, you have a week to self-revert and familiarize yourself with that policy. KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh 18:44, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
-
Headlines in articles - POV ?
Hello Sir ! Just some background - I'm currently working with the history of my local Soccer-football club, Landskrona BoIS. This may, perhaps, "cloud my glasses" and thereby cause some POV. However in my own humble opinion I think my contributions are well referenced. Amd my intentions have been to tell the history of the club (that is well-known whithin Sweden, but lackes real great victories) by the use of available sources. I have divided the club history in sections, as one should. I cannot take responsibility for other editors though, but most of recent changes are done by me, and the article has expanded since I began this work. (Swedish language as source seems to be accepted from webb-sources since the webb-translators today are good enough in order to be able to check if the source actually supports the statements. This has been used by many Scandinavian editors for rather a long time now, especially in Swdish or Scandinavian related articles) A very strange problem has now occured from another Scandinavian editor. User Reckless123 thinks that the article Landskrona BoIS must not use headlines that describes the following text part, even though the sources are OK. He means that using headlines like "1994 - 1996 Financial disorder caused dual relegation" is POV, dispite the fact that this is the essence of the following (sourcered) text. After having a look at Helsingborg IF (a neighbouring club), I find that the headlines under its history section, in that case are more POV. But user Reckless123 has so far not given any satisfying answer to this. So I think here is an editorial problem that calls for guidance. Can a headline be regarded as POV even if it tells the essence of a (well referenced) text ? As I see it, this may apply to other headline matters aswell. I don't think knowledge of soccer/football is necessary to give us guidelines. If You possible could help us, it would be very appriciated. Kind Regards Boeing720 (talk) 21:26, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
- My user name is Reckless182 by the way. User Reckless123 thinks that the article Landskrona BoIS must not use headlines that describes the following text part, even though the sources are OK is a false statement. I do believe that headlines should describe the text, however Boeing has described the text with headlines that have been awfully biased, examples include: 1980's and early 1990's Mostly a dull period and The third millenium - a good start. I have suggested alternative versions that are more neutral but Boeing would rather have it his own way it seems. --Reckless182 (talk) 08:52, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
I am not able to jump into this discussion at present. -- JHunterJ (talk) 10:47, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Formatting
Not sure what happened here but all the line breaks got removed. Not a problem as I was able to put them back. Only thing was in doing so I forgot what it was I wanted to add. Cheers. CBWeather, Talk, Seal meat for supper? 13:03, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
- I removed them because they weren't separate comments. Didn't want editors attempting to respond in the middle of your comment just because there was a blank line there. Are the line breaks needed for something? -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:38, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
- They were to make for easier reading. Some editors complain about long "walls of text" and TLDR. I'll try this. CBWeather, Talk, Seal meat for supper? 20:26, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Possible protection required
Hello JhunterJ, I've just witnessed edit-warring at Occupied Enemy Territory Administration article, which in my opinion is a very important article regarding formation of modern Middle East; possible protection is required. Moreover, apparently some user completely changed the topic a few months ago, without any discussion at talk page. Due to importance of this article, i reverted him back until he discusses it through.GreyShark (dibra) 14:11, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Ok, you asked
Per your request, your attendance is requested at this dispute resolution. KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh 19:36, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
DRN about Wikipedia:MOS
Hi there, I am an un-involved editor on Wikipedia DRN. I would like to welcome you to the discussion. I can make out by reading your comments that you don't want to discuss the issue, but I would need your help in answering some questions. While I can't guarantee that there will be no incivility, but I will try my best to keep the discussion free from any.--Wikishagnik (talk) 21:24, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
- Please don't misunderstand my notes above. My declining to satisfy KoshVorlon's ultimatums here on my Talk page does not mean that I don't want to discuss the issue in the appropriate venues. I'll be happy to participate in the DRN discussion. -- JHunterJ (talk) 21:29, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Sorting out the (Al)(l)an Shermans
Really need to dab that Alan Sherman article; it's a common name and when I did a search in Google for "Alan Sherman" it immediately sent me to Allan Sherman, the comedy writer. (Furthermore, I think either Al or Allan Sherman was born "Alan" and had a name change as a professional...). I don't want to get into a big WP:PRIMARY fight about it, but IMHO all three spellings should go to a single dab and then to the article on each man. JMO. I have no real stake in this, just noticed a bluelink appeared when I thought I was going to have a red link on a different Alan Sherman (who may or may not be viewed as notable enough for an article at this point). Anyway, per BRD, looks like you are the lead editor on the Sherman article, so discussing. Montanabw(talk) 20:05, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
- If the only Alan Sherman topic on Wikipedia isn't the primary topic for the title "Alan Sherman" on Wikipedia, then there needs to be an W:RM to move the topic to a qualified name and the dab to the base name. (It's this latter step that put the page on the list at WP:MALPLACED, where I found it.) But minor differences are acceptable for different titles, with navigation for the others through hatnotes and/or disambiguation pages; see WP:DIFFCAPS. Alan Sherman, Al Sherman, and Allan Sherman is a viable solution, as long as readers on the wrong article can reach the one they seek through hatnotes like {{distinguish}} or {{other people}}. -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:10, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
- I want to be sure I'm clear on this; the basic idea is to just to a RM? Would you be OK if I did this if I'm willing to tweak the hatnotes too? (i.e. I make the request, I do the work ;-) ? ) I think it wise, in the long run, at least. Montanabw(talk) 02:12, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
- An RM is always fine by me. I may oppose it based on WP:DIFFCAPS, but the consensus may be against me. If the RM closer doesn't leave the hatnotes in a useful arrangement, I'll help with the work. :-) -- JHunterJ (talk) 10:26, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
- Not on my A-list of things, I'll get around to it one of these days, I guess. Montanabw(talk) 03:44, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
- I want to be sure I'm clear on this; the basic idea is to just to a RM? Would you be OK if I did this if I'm willing to tweak the hatnotes too? (i.e. I make the request, I do the work ;-) ? ) I think it wise, in the long run, at least. Montanabw(talk) 02:12, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
People's Park
You commented in the discussion just above Talk:People's_Park_(disambiguation)#Primary_topic.3F on the talk page, so might be interested to revisit the topic. PamD 08:03, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
Sean K. Reynolds
Hey JHunterJ,
I have added Sean K. Reynolds to User:JHunterJ/RPG BLPs in case you are able to do anything to help out with the notability issue. Thanks! BOZ (talk) 17:00, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Talk indentation format etiquette or implied meaning
Hi JHunterJ. I'm looking at your talk indentation format edit "No bullet needed on my response to Snowmanradio's bullet. Each response should use the colon-and-star pattern its replying too, plus whichever colon-or-star it needs"
Why no bullet for your response? Is there an etiquette or implied meaning to a bulletted reply versus a non-bulletted reply? I had got to liking to reply in threads by indenting with a bullet on the first paragraph of my reply, and without bullet on any following paragraphs on the same reply. Someone barked at me for messing up indentation (I see no effect on indentation, ::* vs *** vs :::, in any skin) and for doing it wrong. I was just confused. Is there a simple explanation somewhere, or can you tell me? I see how you fixed the indentation on the post of 08:44, but I see no significance to the other changes --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:35, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
- I didn't mean to imply an etiquette around the presence or absence of a bullet in a response. The note is around what precedes the final character in the bullet-or-indent markup. Numbering is where it is most critical:
- Point 1
- Response
- Bulleted response
- Response
- Point 2
- Point 1
- vs
- Point 1
-
- Response
- Bulleted response
- Response
- Point 2
- But sometimes with bullets too:
- This
-
- Response to This
- Response back
- Response to This
-
- Other response to This
- vs.
- This
- Response to This
- Response back
- Other response to This
- Response to This
- This
- Inserting newlines (empty paragraphs) or not preserving the preceding markup (while still appending whichever of star, colon, or hash, depending on whether you want a bullet, unardorned indent, or numbered response) can cause some oddities or unwanted artifacts in the rendering. Always preserving the preceding markup can't cause any oddities. -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:00, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
(American) two cent coint
I see you've moved it to a more a title that no longer identifies it as an American coin. I appreciate that you were sincere and acting in good faith in trying to get the simplest title, however, as per the comments I left in the article talk page there are Australian and NZ 2c coins (well there were until the 1990s) and therefore it probably makes it inappropriate (and looks a little American-centric) to remove the American qualifier in the title. Tigerman2005 (talk) 03:23, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
- I appreciate that. Until there is Wikipedia coverage on the other two-cent coins, however, it is appropriate (and not American-centric) to title the article with the base name. The qualifier still exists as a redirect, which can be linked from other articles as needed. It is inappropriate for a base name to redirect to the base name + qualifier, per WP:PRECISION, as I noted on the talk page. -- JHunterJ (talk) 10:43, 23 April 2014 (UTC)