User talk:Hmains

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Welcome

Wikipedia policies
Article standards
Neutral point of view
Verifiable information only
No original research
Citing sources
What Wikipedia is not
Biographies of living persons
Working with others
Civility and etiquette
No personal attacks
Resolving disputes

   Discussion Conventions

  • Please post new messages at the bottom of the page to prevent confusion.
  • Please sign your comments. Type ~~~~ after your text or use the edit toolbar.
  • Please use section headings to separate conversation topics.

See: Welcome to Wikipedia, FAQ, Wikiquette, Be nice, and Talk page guidelines.

Hope you enjoy contributing to Wikipedia. Be bold in editing pages. Here are some links that you might find useful:

Welcome!! --Gurubrahma 19:20, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Maintenance note

I maintain this page by deleting items over 30 days old. Thanks Hmains 16:31, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Monobook

You may wish to make use of a 'Dates' tab in edit mode that will help with unlinking unnecessary date links. Simply copy the entire contents of User:Bobblewik/monobook.js to your own monobook. Then follow the instructions in your monobook to clear the cache (i.e. press Ctrl-Shift-R in Firefox, or Ctrl-F5 in IE) before it will work. It also provides a 'Units' tab. If you know what you are doing, you can copy and modify the subfiles as you wish. I just thought you might be interested. Regards. bobblewik 20:03, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

The reason it fails is because you refer to User:Hmains/monobook.js/dates.js and User:Hmains/monobook.js/unitformatter.js and these articles do not exist. You have two options:
Try again. I am happy to walk you through the process. So feel free to ask me again. bobblewik 12:03, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] users

User:David.Mestel User:Pedant

[edit] Excellent work: Barnstar for you

RE: [1] Thank you for being the wikipedia restoration expert :) on so many articles about the Philippines. I keep seeing you everywhere. ;)

The Original Barnstar
This barnstar, the first on Wikipedia, is given to recognise particularly fine contributions to Wikipedia, to let people know that their hard work is seen and appreciated. Thanks for cleaning up so many articles! Travb (talk) 13:26, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] World War terminilogy

Hey Hmains, just another note regarding changing some text. Note that in Canadian English and thus in articles about Canada's involvement in the World Wars, please don't change "Second World War" or "First World War" to "World War II" and "World War I". From the Canadian English article "Although the American World War I and World War II are popular in Canadian public use, they are considered substandard in some Canadian academic circles, which prefer First World War (or the Great War) and Second World War.". Thanks, -- Jeff3000 05:26, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I know; the problem of doing mass changes. I will try to avoid, but I will probably still hit some. Hmains 05:30, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I seem to recall having this same conversation with you on my talk page, Hmains - it would be appreciated if you showed more consideration in not making others have to undo your changes. They seem to be piling up.Michael DoroshTalk 06:02, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I am still trying to avoid Canada-people references. Do you have specifics? Hmains 06:05, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi HMains - thanks for the time you put in, but I'm afraid the comments above also apply to some UK topics. If you see an academic/historical/literary article saying 'first/second world war', it's better to leave it alone. Otherwise you risk making the style and tone inappropriate for that subject-matter. --HJMG 09:03, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] An Award

The Minor Barnstar
For your work on minor edits over numerous articles, including mine. Congratulations! Chris 16:03, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] World War One/I

Hello. I note you've changed a number of occurrences in articles about cricketers from "World War One" to "World War I". I don't have any strong objection to the "I" terminology, but I'm not sure why you considered it needed changing; both forms are acceptable in British English, and where cricket is concerned at least the "One" form is more popular. Loganberry (Talk) 12:23, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. As I said above, I don't really object to the "I" terminology and won't be reverting your changes, but I don't necessarily agree that it's clearer. In print "I" and "II" look a lot more similar than "One" and "Two"! Actually "Great War" is rapidly (if slightly surprisingly) coming back into common British English usage, which confuses things further! Loganberry (Talk) 13:56, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Note that from WP:R#Don't_fix_links_to_redirects_that_aren't_broken, "Most especially, there should never be a need to replace [[redirect]] with [[direct|redirect]]." so your comment on User talk:Loganberry ("it seems to me that having one uniform reference to that article name is preferable to having many") does not apply. -- Jeff3000 03:12, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AWB conversion of frac template

Hi, I noticed you've been changing use of template:frac into Unicode characters using AWB, for example on British industrial narrow gauge railways. Can I ask the rationale behind thisw? I believe that retaining the frac template is superior. It produces more readable fractions (at least on my machine) with slightly large nominators and denominators. More importantly the frac template makes it easier for editors to change the values, as many people don't know how to generate Unicode characters and some machines can't. Further, the frac template allows any arbitrary character to be produced, while some fractions aren't in the Unicode character set.

As far as I know there isn't a Manual of Style guideline that suggests the use of Unicode characters over the frac template - if one exists please let me know. Otherwise, could I ask you not to change the fractions this way in the future? Many thanks, Gwernol 12:28, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Will do, thanks for the info. Best, Gwernol 03:13, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] link to British

Hello, when you want to link to the article about something British, please do not link to British, as that is a disambiguation page (which nothing should be linked to). Instead link to the one of the options found on that page such as United Kingdom, Great Britain or British English by writing out [[United Kingdom|British]] or [[Great Britain|British]]. Regards, Jeff3000 03:08, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] University/college, not school

Hi, regarding your addition of category to Orangeburg massacre, I don't believe the term "school" is accurately applied to a university or college. A "school" is generally equated to mean a primary or secondary institution, whereas a college or university is considered an institution of higher learning. In the United States, however, departments or faculties within colleges or universities may sometimes be called "schools." Badagnani 21:41, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

You are incorrect on the point that "school" encompasses all educational institutions. It does not, in particular in the U.K., Australia, and New Zealand, where universities and colleges are never called "schools." As I've explained above, the term "school" is occasionally used to refer to a department or faculty within a college or university. A more proper overarching category would be "Killings at educational institutions," with subcategories for K-12 schools and institutions of higher learning. As it stands, your apparent "delete" vote with lack of meaningful discussion and incorrect argument about the definition of "school" isn't helpful. Badagnani 22:02, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chinese armies in the Second Sino-Japanese War

Good work on Chinese armies in the Second Sino-Japanese War. A wikipedia league for copyeditors has started up recently and is always looking for new members, especially talented ones. You might want to have a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject League of Copyeditors. Anyway, thanks for doing work on that article I couldn't be bothered doing myself! Rintrah 08:50, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] copyedit portal

Hi

I see from your user page that you're interested in copyediting. I find it very disturbing and depressing that huge amounts of WP editing time are wasted on unnecessary and clearly amateur discussions of naming and spelling issues. You of course realise that almost all discussions on language use by normal people (i.e. not professional copyeditors or linguists) make fools of almost all participants and that they waste a very large part of editing efforts on WP. I'm getting so fed up with this nonsense that i'd like to ask you what you think about the idea of setting up a copyedit portal or copyedit emergency squad to get some sanity and professionalism into this completely amateur aspect of WP. I've asked a few linguists to join my project, but it would be good to also have members with more traditional approaches to copyedit issues. As you know, almost all modern linguists have a purely scientific approach to language and consider anything OK as long as it's used by more than a few people, and even then they don't label it wrong in anything not communal like a wiki. See Talk:Académie française and Talk:Genealogy#reverts_of_WP:OR.2C_private_.28conspiracy.29_theories.2C_and_other_nonsense for more details... --Espoo 09:29, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure what to make of your essay to me, I just do simple copyedits. Thanks Hmains 03:38, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Basically what i'm saying is that it would make sense to found something like Wikipedia:WikiProject League of Copyeditors, which i didn't know existed.
And if you don't understand what i wrote to you, then it seems you're lucky and haven't wasted your time arguing with people who think their personal opinions are as valid as what dictionaries and other reference works and WP:MOS say about spelling, naming, and other copyedit issues. Unless copyeditors get together and enforce basic WP policies, all our work will drown in the onslaught of people who don't even know the most rudimentary things about writing an encyclopedia. --Espoo 05:29, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Category talk:American people

I replied to your statement on there. Pink moon 1287 21:47, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hay

I see your editing rather fast could you please slow down as 6 edits a minute are flooding the rc list. you might conside having a bot do what ever your doing. Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 04:42, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I would suggest 3 edits a minute, unless you want to get a bot account. Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 04:52, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
All you would need is a seperate account that we could set up for you to use only for AWB and set that account as a "Bot" Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 05:18, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
I understand BOTs are for changes that can be made automatically without human review. The changes I make need human review so I believe AWB is the only choice.

Thanks Hmains 21:27, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AWB change to Papal conclave

I Reverted your AWB assisted changes to Papal conclave. First, it's not just the Roman part of the Catholic Church that chooses a pope, but all of the Church. Secondly, the work cited as a reference is actually entitled the "Catholic Encyclopedia", not the "Roman Catholic Encyclopedia". Gentgeen 04:45, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

You've also been changing links to catholic-hierarchy.net to Roman catholic-hierarchy.net, which breaks the links. Secondly, many Eastern Catholics are offended if they are called Roman Catholics. In those situations, it is better to let the link continue to exist at the redirect. Gentgeen 04:54, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

If you think I was talking about the Eastern Orthodox Churches, you need to do more homework on the subject. Eastern Catholic Churches are churches of eastern traditions in communion with the Holy See. You have made several changes on Eastern Catholic subjects, such as Chaldean Catholic Church, to refer to those subjects by a term they may find offensive. Gentgeen 05:03, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

You do realize that what you are doing violates Wikipedia:Redirect? Specifically, Don't fix links to redirects that aren't broken - Some editors are tempted, upon finding links using a legitimate redirect target, to edit the page to "fix" the link so that it points "straight" at the "correct" page. Unless the link displays incorrectly — for instance, if the link is to a misspelling, or other unprintworthy redirects, or if the hint that appears when you hover over the link is misleading — there is no need to edit the link. The link may be deliberate, may consolidate related information in one place, or may indicate possible future articles. Also, don't be suprised if the articles are changed back by unhappy Eastern Catholics. Gentgeen 08:22, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

All points to you Hmains for working to clean things up. However, you managed to stroll into a long term disagreement for which there appears to be a tentative compromise, which includes the redirect from Catholic Church to Roman Catholic Church with a note for a disambiguation page. Your changes to the Vatican II aricles therefore violates the policy referred to above and will be reverted. Try to avoid this change on a mass basis in the future. ClaudeMuncey 18:30, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Claude: Do you mean it is not worth my trouble to change links from 'Catholic Church' to 'Roman Catholic Church' and 'Catholic' person to 'Roman Catholic' person--not for the purpose of getting rid of redirects and links to DAB pages, but for the purpose of clarity in the text of the article? Thanks Hmains 22:01, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I strongly urge you to read User:Leinad-Z/RCC Disclaimer. Please, find other ways to be productive, instead of changing the word "Roman". Wikipedia has consistently supported BOTH the use of "Catholic Church" and "Roman Catholic Church" to refer to the same body. There are arguments on both sides why one or the other may not be best. There are also instances where one works better than the other. Because efforts over the past few years by multiple editors to get one or the other the sole name of the Church have all failed, it seems best to simply recognize that some articles use CC and others use RCC and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. What IS problematic is making automated, wholesale changes without having prior consensus. I strongloy urge you to reconsider editing in this manner, and find different ways to contribute. It is just one word. Let it go. (and if I sound a little agitated, please do not take it personally, I have just been involved in these debates (that go no where) over the past 8 months or so.) --Andrew c 22:21, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

And a little bit more, I saw where you wrote I have re-examined my changes and believe them to be correct, based on the fact that Catholic Church is a redirect to Roman Catholic Church. See the disclaimer, specifically The current name of the page is not intended to imply that either the term "Roman Catholic Church" is preferred or the term "Catholic Church" is discouraged in the text of Wikipedia articles. Also, you may want to review Talk:Roman Catholic Church/Archive7. The RCC vs CC is a very fragile debate, and I believe we have reached a middle ground. Some editors still wish that RCC was the only term used, and others wish CC was the only term used (especially as the title for the main article). Not everyone can have their way, so allowing both and frowning severely on editors who edit for the sole purpose of changing RCC to CC or vice versa seems like the working compromise. I'm bringing this stuff to your attention to hopefully avoid another big debate, or edit wars. I really think there are much more important matters than arguing over one silly word.--Andrew c 22:27, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
We were in the process of getting the content of the disclaimer into the Naming Conventions. Back in September I posted there asking what would need to be done to get it in, but no one responded. Seeing your edits has motivated me to try to get it into the Naming Conventions again. I agree completely that this side conclusion that resulted from the last big debate between RCC vs CC should be more visable, and hopefully it will be on the NC page in a few weeks (or sooner). I don't mean to discourage debate on this matter, I just personally tired of seeing it and would be happy if everyone could just agree to disagree. But as can be seen on the Talk:RCC page, there has once again been strong talk suggesting the article should be renamed to CC (though it is by the editor who started the last big vote).--Andrew c 03:17, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Draco (disambiguation) move

Based on your comment, I think you may have misunderstood the request to move Draco (disambiguation) to Draco. The move would not delete the page. The move is simply to determine whether the disambiguation page or another article should be at Draco. Would you like to modify or explain your comment at Talk:Draco (disambiguation)? Dr. Submillimeter 17:35, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Featured list candidates - Canadian provincial elections

Thanks for you comments on List of Saskatchewan general elections' featured list nominations page. You may be interested to know that the Alberta, Manitoba and British Columbia equivilants are currently Featured List Candidates, and I would welcome your input. Tompw 17:46, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Finishing off the date linking thing

Hi. Sorry I haven't had much time on this; I'm going to tidy it up and put it away in the next few days if I can. See User talk:Guinnog/date linking for my proposals. Best wishes, --Guinnog 18:18, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Mr. Mains, I see that you have returned to your mass date-delinking. How many times do you have to be told that you do not have consensus to make these edits? What you're doing is not right. It is rude and inconsiderate. Please cease and desist. -- Lonewolf BC 09:26, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

(Transferred here from my talk page. For the sake of conversational coherence, let us keep this here, in one place. I have your talk page on "watch" Lonewolf BC)
I am editing one article at a time and I make appropriate edits, as all editors do--generally without asking permission to do so following the WP 'BE BOLD' way. Do you have an article that you are concerned about? Thanks Hmains 19:11, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Mr. Mains, I and others have gone over and over with you the reasons why your indiscriminate mass date-delinking is not appropriate. Please cease and desist, without further fuss (or further attempted misdirection as to the issue, as exemplified by the content of your reply).

(Or was your reply meant to answer my note about your similarly indiscriminate mass conversion of "red scare" mentions? Do you truly not see the pattern, here? Please stop editing in a way that causes these sorts of problems.) -- Lonewolf BC 19:36, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Lonewolf BC. I am sorry that I do not know what you are trying to express by the term 'attempted misdirection'. I explained what how I was editing. You may or may not agree with the results, but what is 'misdirection'? Do you have an article you want to discuss? Also, my changes to links regarding 'Red Scare' to 'First Red Scare' and 'Second Red Scare' were appropirate to the context of the articles: two different events, two different articles, two different links. Inapprpriate links get changed to appropriate links? Do you have a question about an article? Thanks Hmains 20:10, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Misdirection:
  1. "I am editing one article at a time...": You are doing mass editing, rapidly running through a high volume of articles using a semi-automated process. That you can only edit one article at a time is beside the point.
  2. "...and I make appropriate edits,...": Some of them might be, but the ones in question certainly are not. Any number of people have informed you of this already, and laboriously explained why they are not.
  3. "...as all editors do...": No, regrettably, not all editors make appropriate edits, and you are one of those who does not, as regards the edits in question. Do not beg the question, please, by trying (at least by implication) to argue that "All editors make appropriate edits, therefore Hmains makes appropriate edits." The first premise of that is ludicrously false.
  4. "...generally without asking permission to do so...": Generally, yes. But not generally despite foreknowledge of a lack of consensus upon, and the contentiousness of some particular kind of edit, which is what you have been doing. I am not suggesting, nor has anyone, that you need my personal permission, nor anyones personal permission to make ordinary, not-known-beforehand-to-be-troublesome edits. What you have been told over and over, by me and by others, is that you need consensus before you can legitimately carry out your mass date-delinking. I do hope you understand the difference between consensus and personal permission.
  5. "...following the WP 'BE BOLD' way.": "Be bold" does not mean "be obstinate" in the face of aforeknown opposition to a particular edit, or a particular kind of edits. (Neither does it mean "be thoughtless" in choosing to make some sweeping change across the articles in Wikipedia, nor "be careless" in carrying out edits on a particular article, within such a sweeping campaign.)
  6. "Do you have an article that you are concerned about?": This is not an issue of any particular article, as you ought know perfectly well by now.
There you have it: misdirection. Not one word of your initial reply to me was to the point, and for the most part it tended to obscure, and to deflect attention away from the real issue. If you are just playing innocent, knock it off. If you really don't understand the nature of the issue by now then I cannot help you any further in doing so. In neither case will I waste more time on explanation, nor passively accept your illicit date-delinking campaign. That is all. -- Lonewolf BC 22:02, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm disappointed too that you have spent time on this kind of editing rather than contribute to User talk:Guinnog/date linking as I invited you to above. Lonewolf BC's reaction above should indicate to you that we still need to finish the exercise I started, to resolve this matter amicably once and for all. While you certainly don't need to seek permission to make any edits you want to, I urge you to seek a planned resolution; if not my solution, you need to help propose another. --Guinnog 19:55, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Let me stress that I personally have no problem with these edits you've made. I just think we could do some work towards ending the conflict here, rather than restarting it, as I think these edits risk doing. --Guinnog 20:28, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Second Red Scare and McCarthyism

Hi - I've responded to your message on my Talk page. KarlBunker 13:05, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for the California Gold Rush touch-up

Thanks for that California Gold Rush touch-up - very helpful! You might want to take another look at that railroad completion sentence:

"The line's completion, some six years later, was financed in part with Gold Rush money, united California with the central and eastern United States; travel that had taken weeks or even months could be accomplished in days."

I think the added "was" throws off the grammar. Perhaps it should be something like:

"The line was completed some six years later and was financed in part with Gold Rush money. This new railroad united California with the central and eastern United States; travel that had taken weeks or even months could be accomplished in days."

What do you think?NorCalHistory 21:59, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Another editor caught it.NorCalHistory 22:29, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Following up on your suggestion for a map, two California Gold Rush maps are available; if you get a chance to go to my talk page, both maps are posted there, and any comment you might have would be appreciated! NorCalHistory 07:40, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Date linking; preliminary conclusions

Hi. Please see what you think of what I wrote at User talk:Guinnog/date linking#Preliminary conclusions. --Guinnog 08:05, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Doing something about the ridiculous date autoformatting/linking mess

Dear Hmains—you may be interested in putting your name to, or at least commenting on this new push to get the developers to create a parallel syntax that separates autoformatting and linking functions. IMV, it would go a long way towards fixing the untidy blueing of trivial chronological items, and would probably calm the nastiness between the anti- and pro-linking factions in the project. The proposal is to retain the existing function, to reduce the risk of objection from pro-linkers. Tony 05:04, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] California Gold Rush FA

Thanks for your very helpful assistance regarding this article, your comments were instrumental in its achieving FA status. Thank you! NorCalHistory 15:12, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please explain you reasoning

re-Many edits this November 28th

You seem to have spent most or all of this edit day tearing down what others could live with. Such as: this (typical example) which action you took in dozens of categories. Apparently others found the association of utility, or it wouldn't have existed in so many pages.

AT LEAST use {{Cat see also}} to provide a link when taking away a useful navigation and cross-connection link in the spirit of WP:Btw. Better yet, add some content instead of deleting the work of others.

Are you one of those 'purists' who think there ought to be one or at most two category associations to things?
   A) If so, how are people that are trained differently than you (or far less) have been taught going to find things when they think of things in entirely different associative ways. Categories are for the customer, not us editors.
   B) Worse, moreover, what about people who have English as a second or third language? (We are writing for the lay-customer, not academics! 'They' already have access to ways and systems of categorizing stuff!) So think of the poor 14 year old struggling to learn associations sans your education, not your own way of perceiving the world. It may be obvious to you that those two were mother daughter, but I can assure you, it was not obvious to me that they are anything but somewhat related. In my 'thought picure' you degraded a lot of good pages by removing the more useful link and word association.
   C) How are you going to rationalize that dislike and ridgid adherece to some ideal only you percieve (I assure you others equally narrow, disagree with you on many other matters) with the different naming schemes on the other sister projects, in particular, on the commons??? The commons is at least as central to all the other sisters and other language projects as en.wp, after all.

In sum, I really think that was a poor edit spurt. Please keep the customer in mind better. Best regards // FrankB 21:29, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] History of the west coast of North America

I've been adding a lot of material to this article, and (hopefully) readers may find it useful and interesting. Any reactions to the changes? NorCalHistory 01:27, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikilogos

I've noticed you're very involved here, you might be interested in my proposal for Wikipedia use logo variations created by members of the wiki community to mark national and international awareness days, Remembrance Days, notable anniversaries, and observance days. Please comment on Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Logo Variations and on my talk page. Thanks! FrummerThanThou 05:50, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../h/m/a/User_talk%7EHmains_ff2f.html"