User talk:JMHamo

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10

Linebreak

Hi, In this edit I understand the change of player names to the correct symbols but I do not understand why you changed my linebreaks? Please read WP:LINEBREAK that says that you should use use (or ).Please note that they use in their example code and that the other break will be translated to so there was no need for you to remove that. Thank you. QED237 (talk) 09:53, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Moot point in my opinion. It's just my personal preference, that's all. Both do exactly the same thing, so no harm done. In fact leaving out the extra space and forward slash makes the article size smaller by two bytes each time. :) JMHamo (talk) 11:54, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes that is true, but if someone has used one of them there is no need to change, that is disruptive and some may take offense to it (not that I care that much). And at some article for example Champions league and Europa league only is being used. QED237 (talk) 12:09, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As I said it's a personal preference and it doesn't matter which you prefer to use, you can even use a mix of both! It's certainly not a disruptive action. JMHamo (talk) 12:19, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am not going to argue over this "issue", since as we have said both can be used and it it up to the editor what to use. However changing an edit from an other user when there is no need to change that is disruptive. As you said "it's a personal preference" and I choose and you had no right to change that, and if you say it dont matter to you, then why did you change it? Such things can actually affect new editor thinking other will always correct them and they get tired of it. I will not comment this further and I will let this slide through my fingers, but I would appreciate if you would not make these changes in the future, especially since you said "it doesn't matter" you dont have to change it. Have a nice day. QED237 (talk) 12:57, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

and you said "(not that I care that much)"... JMHamo (talk) 12:59, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I did, I dont care that much but other er may do and there is no need to change it when it is a perfectly fine linebreak. QED237 (talk) 13:03, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not tell me "I would appreciate if you would not make these changes in the future"... everybody's free to edit Wikipedia and I will make any changes I wish, you can not tell an editor not to edit after you because you don't like, especially when we're referring to code that's not even seen by people reading the article. JMHamo (talk) 13:13, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) - JMHamo, to have other editors explaining to you that "this edit might not be good, because..." is much better then when people simply revert eachother. QED has not reverted you, he simply leaves a friendly message asking why you changed it, and after you explained why he asks you to not do such unnecessary changes in the future - that is exactly the kind of behavior every Wikipedia-editor should have. You both agree on that the code is the same, and If it ain't broke, don't fix it so I am hoping that you will follow QED's advice to not do such unnecessary changes again. Though it should be noted that I disagree with QED's comment about it being disruptive, but if you however continue to edit against the advice of fellow editors I might consider it to be disruptive. Mentoz86 (talk) 13:50, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't it funny how trivial things get people annoyed. I do agree that this is a non-issue and If it ain't broke, don't fix it does apply here, so I won't edit no more if it's already like that, also I'm happy that you agree about my behaviour not being disruptive as implied. Thanks, JMHamo (talk) 13:58, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion tagging

Hi JMHamo, A7 is for articles that don't assert significance or importance, not articles like Erdal Arikan. I've changed it to a BLPprod. Ϣere SpielChequers 12:06, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know, I just realised that A7 does not apply to educational institutes. Thanks for the BLPPROD. JMHamo (talk) 12:11, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, he isn't an educational institution, but whilst not all Professors survive AFD being a Professor is significant enough to avoid A7, as indeed would be "famous for his invention of Polar Codes". Ϣere SpielChequers 12:16, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Get you! Thanks for the explanation. Have a good day :) JMHamo (talk) 12:22, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Re:meatpuppetry

Almost definitely - but unfortunately it would be extremely hard to prove. We just need to hope that the closing admin has some common sense. Giant Snowman 20:41, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

G13 Checking

Dear JMHamo: I am sorry that you were offended by the conversation at the Afc talk page. I think that part of what upset you may have been a misunderstanding, though. The G13 bot nominates the submissions in order, oldest first. Those of us who have been rescuing some of the submissions usually just leave the ones that we don't rescue alone unless they are offensive or something, and the bot gets rid of them when it gets to them. That's why we let the others know which ones we've already looked at (Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/G13 rescue). No one was suggesting that the bot should do the checking instead of a person (obviously it can't), only that it pace the deletions so that the admins aren't overworked.

I realize that you have said that you won't check any more, but if you should change your mind at any time you will be welcome. —Anne Delong (talk) 01:54, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your explanation Anne. If only the Admins could have explained it like that to me, things would have been different. I am going to stick to WP:FOOTY from now on. Thanks! JMHamo (talk) 02:02, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was also sorry to read about the interaction. Thank you for the work that you did with the AFC backlog, and happy editing. Jujutacular (talk) 02:36, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Some of us at WP:AfC are aware that there are problems with the way in which some editors (and admins) express themselves when one of the volunteers at gets it wrong. There's no need for respect and politeness to go out of the window when someone isn't on the right track. What you were told was valid, the way you were told was not. Please be assured the problem is being watched, so others don't get treated like you were. Rankersbo (talk) 19:24, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your message Rankersbo, you've hit the nail on the head! I was offended by the tone of the Admin's replies, not the request to stop G13 tagging. You've restored my faith a little. Have a nice weekend. JMHamo (talk) 20:41, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention the blatant PA you responded with. Between you, you have lost something else for the project. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:44, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you won't stop working in the AFC area. Ironically, I came across your comment because I'm concerned about the AfC backlog, and came to check out the talk thread before making a proposal. I'd like to reiterate one point that was hinted at, but bears repeating (although if it had been said earlier, it would have been better). A few month's ago when user:Hasteur started the bot to help clean out some of the G13s, there were some strongly worded discussions. Not quite a war, but some unpleasantness. That led to some agreements among the interested parties, and in the usual way of Wikipedia, we agreed to a process you are somehow supposed to know about, despite not being clearly written down in a single place. I also play a small part, which is why I feel a bit guilty that I might have contributed to the problem.

I am one of the admins cleaning out many of the G13s. I won't bore you with my full process, except to note that when it comes to anyone new, I look closely at the first few nominations (by few, I mean a hundred or so), until I reach comfort that the person isn't nominating articles that could easily be rescued. I reached that comfort level, so when I see your name, I can delete with minimal checking. However, I typically go out of town for a couple days each week. That didn't happen in November, but I was out of town on 5 December, and when I am out of town, my Wikipedia work is minimal, and my G13 deletions are close to non-existent. Which means much of the time you were nominating, I was making sure the backlog rarely hit a hundred, and was often almost empty. The bot alone will never generate a 100, but if the bot generates 50 at a time when you and Anne and Rankersbo are active, and I'm not around, the backlog can built up. That's when it happened. (FYI, I'll be out this Wednesday and Thursday).

You are a volunteer, so of course you can work on anything you want. If you wanted to know where you would be most effective, I would argue it is better to work on reviews, because those can only be handled by humans, whereas G13 nominations can be done by bot. But again, you get to choose what you want to work on. I hope you will stay active.--S Philbrick (Talk) 18:44, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Transfermarkt template

No, go for it and open a new TFD, I even posted at WP:ELN following the advice at the last discussion and go no response at all. Giant Snowman 19:37, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese Recorder and Missionary Journal

I removed your speedy deletion tag, as it appears (a) to be notable, and (b) has plenty of context - your reasoning is either invalid or outdated, based on an earlier version. Please take this to WP:AfD instead. Bearian (talk) 18:30, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It has been updated a lot now since I tagged it for deletion. Thanks JMHamo (talk) 18:33, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies -- I messed up & somehow half the page was missing in the version you first saw. I don't understand why: It was there in the edit window but not in the saved page. I couldn't see any codes or anything at all at the point after which the text on the page was blank (except for the big red notice that there was no <ref/>) but the text in the edit window was all there. I then copied the whole page to my clipboard, spit on my hands, inserted the same text back & voila! it was fine. Weird. ch (talk) 22:54, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No problem! Glad you got it sorted. JMHamo (talk) 22:57, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

David Thibault

I really think this asserts significance. 2 million views on youtube and the Canadian Broadcast Corporation article certanlly sound significance, if not notability. Dloh cierekim 23:04, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, there was a Youtube clip as the only source before, but I see that's been amended now. JMHamo (talk) 23:08, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

i was ready to click the delete button. Then I looked at the clip page and I saw about 2,000,000 views. So I dug deeper. I always try to search for sourcing before I delete. cheers, Dloh cierekim 23:15, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A11

Hi. I've declined a couple of A11s of yours. A11 'made-up' is only for things like a student drinking game 'invented by Shane and Wayne in the Blur Gerbil pub on the 21st of November 2013', or a new word meaning the smell of roses, finding cat hair in the trifle, and missing out on the pizza at a party because someone didn't cut it right. Basically, not a hoax because it could be true - but there's no notability, AND it says or implies without any doubt that it was invented (recently being the default assumption). Hoaxes are written to deceive and are a branch of vandalism. We AGF that A11 posts are intended to be in good faith (but are misguided...). A list of thesauruses (or even thesauri...) isn't a made-up thing. It may have other faults, and I'm not sure what (if anything) to do about that one. A11 is still misunderstood by people who weren't in on its creation, but it is quite limited and doesn't duplicate hoax - and like A9 is a two part criterion. A9 requires a non-articled performer AND non-notability; A11 requires an assumption of good faith (largely because there's no evidence otherwise) AND non-notability (without any hope...). Peridon (talk) 15:37, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation. Good to know! JMHamo (talk) 15:48, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The creation of new CSD things takes a lot of argument which leads to a template with a short description, and even more abbreviated summaries at TW and PC. If you have any queries about CSD, let me know. It's where I've worked since I started here, and I decided to get in on the discussions to counter some of the extreme inclusionism (and restrain some of the extreme deletionism...). Peridon (talk) 15:57, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your db-context tag at Üveggyapot

Hi. I saw that you tagged Üveggyapot for speedy deletion under criterion A1, lack of context. I wanted to let you know that that criterion doesn't apply to articles just because they're in foreign languages, Hungarian in this case. See WP:NOTENGLISH for information on handling articles like these if you don't find other grounds under which to have them deleted.

In this case, there were two applicable speedy deletion criteria: WP:CSD A2 because the article was copied from Hungarian Wikipedia and, probably, WP:CSD A10 because the article's topic is already at Fiberglass. In theory, before tagging it with A10, I could have looked through the Hungarian article to see if it had any information that could be added to the English one, but:

I was tagging it with A2 as well anyway.
Even if A2 didn't apply, I wouldn't feel an obligation to wait till someone translates it to find out, because if no one translates it then the article would be deleted after a couple weeks anyway.

So I replaced your deletion tag with a multi-tag for A2 and A10. —Largo Plazo (talk) 11:44, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

VisualEditor newsletter • 19 December 2013

Did you know?

VisualEditor's toolbar has a new drop-down menu that contains all character formatting: bold, italics, subscript, superscript, strikethrough, computer code, underline, and the ability to remove all formatting from text.

For more information about how to use VisualEditor, read the user guide.

Since the last newsletter, the VisualEditor team has worked on some toolbar improvements, fixing bugs, and improving support for Indic languages as well as other languages with complex characters. The current focus is on improving the reference dialog and expanding the new character inserter tool.

There have been dozens of changes since the last newsletter. Here are some of the highlights:

Rich copying and pasting is now available. If you copy text from another website, then character formatting and some other HTML attributes are preserved. This means, for example, that if you copy a pre-formatted suggested citation from a source like this, then VisualEditor will preserve the formatting of the title in the citation. Keep in mind that copying the formatting may include formatting that you don't want (like section headings). If you want to paste plain, unformatted text onto a page, then use Control+⇧ Shift+V or ⌘ Command+⇧ Shift+V (Mac).
Auto-numbered external links like [1] can now be edited just like any other link. However, they cannot be created in VisualEditor easily.
Several changes to the toolbar and dialogs have been made, and more are on the way. The toolbar has been simplified with a new drop-down text styles menu and an "insert" menu. Your feedback on the toolbar is wanted here. The transclusion/template dialog has been simplified. If you have enabled mathematical formula editing, then the menu item is now called the formula editor instead of LaTeX.
There is a new character inserter, which you can find in the new "insert" menu, with a capital Omega ("Ω"). It's a very basic set of characters. Your feedback on the character inserter is wanted here.
Saving the page should seem faster by several seconds now.
It is now possible to access VisualEditor by manually editing the URL, even if you are not logged in or have not opted in to VisualEditor normally. To do so, append ?veaction=edit to the end of the page name. For example, change https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random?veaction=edit to open a random page in VisualEditor. This is intended to support bug testing across multiple browsers, without requiring editors to login repeatedly.

Looking ahead: The transclusion dialog will see further changes in the coming weeks, with a simple mode for single templates and an advanced mode for more complex transclusions. The new character formatting menu on the toolbar will get an arrow to show that it is a drop-down menu. The reference dialog will be improved, and the Reference item will become a button in the main toolbar, rather than an item in the Insert menu.

If you have questions or suggestions for future improvements, or if you encounter problems, please let everyone know by posting a note at Wikipedia:VisualEditor/Feedback. Thank you! Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 20:45, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas

Many thanks, you too! Giant Snowman 08:43, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas!

Mattythewhite (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Hello

Thanks for the help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.122.187.10 (talk) 09:36, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Liverpool F.C. / Brad Smith

I reverted your reversion of my edit, the addition of the link to Brad Smith, on Liverpool F.C. because despite your comment the page had actually been created, 6 minutes before my edit, I just linked it to the wrong page, and corrected that in my next edit, to Brad Smith (footballer born in 1994